The dictionary says in them that to disagree nothing more it is that the act not to agree, of divergir. We can add that to descordar it is, also, the act not to combine, to be in different ratios, to untune when all are in the certain rhythm, to have an opinion it opposes. All we have the right to disagree with something that not condiz with our principles or that in some way antagonizes our beliefs, equally we can be the target of the discord. Perhaps, this is one of the greaters pillars of the democracy, if not bigger it amongst many others. To disagree or to agree is to exercise the thought freedom that soon becomes practised expression and liberty of speech. They imagine as if it felt the oppressed ones in the nazistas concentration camps, that suffering all possible disaster could not nor the least murmur saying to be against, needed to swallow its well most precious one, the liberty of speech.
They imagine as it was to be black and enslaved in the feudal period, where the discord was not accepted and if manifest she was soon inhibited, suppressed, massacreed, for the whips of the administrators of the coffee farms or for official torturadores. They imagine, as it was to live in countries dominated by the dictatorship, where its liberty of speech if limited to repeat words of submission, ' ' yes senhor' ' , ' ' not senhor' '. Perhaps in these cases the act to disagree was not exercised in full way, not yet is being. Ademais, to descordar is not alone to be opposes for the simple fact of fondness to be against, this is at least to be irresponsible and imcompetent person with all possible and necessary ethics. But, lamentably it has who understands that it disagrees it for disagreeing becomes it revolutionary, defender of its proper ideology.