FERNANDA CÂNCIO

 .

UM ARTIGO APROPRIADO PARA HOJE

Por uma família sem amos

A ideia de que existiria apenas um conceito de família e que este seria “natural” - ou seja, tudo o resto seria “contra-natura” - é uma daquelas mistificações ignaras que não resiste a um pouco de conhecimento histórico e antropológico. Isto se não formos capazes do mais recomendável - empatia, igualdade, liberdade.

𝖤𝗇𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈, 𝗈𝗂𝖼̧𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖳𝖵 𝗈 𝖾𝗑-𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈-𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈, 𝖾𝗑-𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝖯𝖲𝖣 𝖾 𝖣𝗈𝗆 𝖲𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝗎𝖾𝗌𝖺 𝖯𝖾𝖽𝗋𝗈 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝗈𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗍𝖺̂𝗇𝖾𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾 𝖥𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺. 𝖠𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗎-𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌: “𝖨𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺-𝗆𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖺𝖼̧𝗈 𝗉𝗎́𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗁𝗂𝗉𝖾𝗋-𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋.”

𝖤́ 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗋 𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖾𝗑-𝖯𝖬 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗆 𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗈 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖺 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗋 𝗇𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗎 𝗇𝗈 𝖤𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖣𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖽 𝖣𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗌, 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅” 𝖾 “𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝗈 𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈” (𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖺 “𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅”, 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈̃𝖾-𝗌𝖾). 𝖣𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗋𝖺́ 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝖺𝖻𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺: 𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 “𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅” 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺𝖽𝖺, 𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋, 𝖺𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗏𝖾́𝗌 𝖽𝖾 “𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈”.

𝖤 𝗊𝗎𝖾 “𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗈” 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾? 𝖰𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺? 𝖮𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺? 𝖢𝗈𝗆 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗋. 𝖬𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗈̃𝖾-𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝖩𝗈𝖺̃𝗈 𝖢𝖾́𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖭𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗑-𝖯𝖬 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗍𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺 𝗉𝖾́𝗋𝗈𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝖼𝗎𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈: “𝖠 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 [𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 “𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺”] 𝖾́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗁𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗓𝗈̃𝖾𝗌. 𝖠 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗋𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖺 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗂𝗇𝖺. 𝖮 𝗌𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗌, 𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈.”

𝖭𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗎 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺, 𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍𝗈𝗌 (𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗈 𝖺 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗈 𝖤𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈), 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 “𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗃𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾 𝗈 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖺-𝗁𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈́𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗈”: 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺̃𝗈 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌? 𝖤 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺, “𝖺𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗌𝖾́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈𝗌”, “𝗌𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆” 𝗈𝗎 “𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖿𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈”? 𝖰𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖺́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈 𝖨𝗋𝖺̃𝗈 𝗈𝗎 𝗈 𝖠𝖿𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗈𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗋𝗋𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌? 𝖤 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗅𝗂 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖼𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾?

𝖤 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗈𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗑𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗎́𝗅𝗉𝗂𝗍𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖺 𝗆𝖺̃𝗈, 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ “𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅” 𝖾 “𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅”? 𝖯𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗎𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂́𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗌: 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗏𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝖻𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖢𝖾́𝗌𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖭𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗌, 𝖾 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈, 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝗈: 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝖼̧𝗎𝗅𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌. 𝖤 𝗈 𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺, 𝗌𝖺𝖻𝖾-𝗌𝖾, 𝖾́ 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 (𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖺, 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈).

𝖴𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗇𝖺𝗌𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝖾𝗆 𝟣𝟫𝟧𝟩, 𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗈𝗎 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝟣𝟫𝟩𝟦 𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗈𝗍𝗈; 𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈̃𝖾𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺 𝖽𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺; 𝗈𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗀𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖢𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗅, 𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌, 𝖺 𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 “𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖿𝖾 𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺” 𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗈, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗈 𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝗋-𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺, 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂-𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋, 𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗋-𝗌𝖾, 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗌 (𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 “𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗌”).

𝖠𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗆 𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖻𝖾́𝗆 𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝗎𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗈 𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗋𝗀𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖤 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗀𝗇𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗏𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗌 “𝗌𝖾𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖺𝗋𝖼𝖺” 𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝖽𝗎́𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝗎, 𝗌𝖾 “𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗈𝗇𝗋𝖺𝖽𝖺𝗌”, 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝟤𝟣 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝗈𝖻 𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝗎 “𝗉𝖺́𝗍𝗋𝗂𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗋” (𝖿𝖺𝗓 𝗅𝖾𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖽𝖺́ 𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾 “𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗇𝗋𝖺”, 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝗀𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗂́𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝖼̧𝗎𝗅𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗓?).

𝖩𝖺́ 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗎𝗆 𝖽𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗌𝗆𝗈 𝖢𝗈́𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗈 𝖯𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈 “𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝗆𝖾́𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺” - 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗋 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗌𝖾́𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗉𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝖾 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾́𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾𝖼̧𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗎𝗆 𝖾 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖾, 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗏𝗂𝗈𝗅𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺.

𝖲𝗂𝗆, 𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗏𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗎𝗀𝖺𝗅, 𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗁𝖺́ 𝟧𝟢 𝖺𝗇𝗈𝗌 - 𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆 - 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝗈́ 𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂́𝗏𝖾𝗅, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗂𝗌 (𝖺𝗍𝖾́ 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖽𝖾 “𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗅𝖾𝗀𝗂́𝗍𝗂𝗆𝗈𝗌”), 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖼𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝗇𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗅𝖺, 𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖽𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖺́𝗋𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗂𝗑𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗉𝖾́𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗏𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝖺̀𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌. 𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖺-𝗌𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 “𝗉𝖺𝗉𝖾́𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝖾́𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗈” - 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝖽𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗋, 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝖺 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗓𝖺, 𝖽𝖾 “𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝖾́𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗈”. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗈 𝗀𝖾́𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗈, 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗌𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋, 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗂 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 (𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝖾́) 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖽𝗈.

𝖮 𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗈 𝖤𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗎𝗅𝗀𝗈𝗎, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖾́ 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗉𝖾́𝗂𝗌 𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂́𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗈𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗈, 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 - 𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗃𝖺, 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌 -, “𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺”. 𝖤́ 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺 𝖾 𝗁𝖺́ 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗂𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝖨𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖢𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖽𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖺́𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝗂𝗎, 𝖾𝗆 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝟦ª 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾̂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺 𝖬𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝖬𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋 (𝖯𝖾𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗆, 𝟣𝟫𝟫𝟧) 𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖾𝗆 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈 𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝖺𝗈𝗌 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌, 𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 “𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝗀𝖾́𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗈”. 𝖬𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗋𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾: 𝖺 𝖨𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗃𝖺 𝖢𝖺𝗍𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗌𝖺 𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖺 - 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 (𝖽𝖾𝗅𝖺 𝖨𝗀𝗋𝖾𝗃𝖺) 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖺.

𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖺 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗁𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗌 - 𝖺 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗅𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌, 𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗍𝖾̂𝗆 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗂𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗂𝗌 - “𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈́𝗂 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺” 𝖾́ 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝖽𝖾𝖼𝖾 𝖽𝗈 𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺, 𝖺 𝗎́𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺́𝗏𝖾𝗅. 𝖴𝗆𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺, 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖢𝗈𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗎 “𝗂𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈”, 𝖽𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖺 “𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗅”: “𝖲𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝗈𝗃𝖾 𝗎𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗂 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈, 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗅𝗁𝖺 [𝖾́ 𝗏𝗂𝗎́𝗏𝗈]. 𝖧𝖺́ 𝗆𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺̃𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗍𝖾𝗂𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝖾 𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖾́𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖺̀𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗈 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗌 𝖺 𝗎𝗆𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺”.

𝖯𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 “𝗁𝗂𝗉𝖾𝗋-𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝗈̃𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝖾𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗆 𝗈 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋” 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́ 𝗆𝖺𝗅: 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗂́𝖽𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗎𝗆 𝖺𝖽𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗇𝖼̧𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝖻𝗈𝖺𝗌, 𝖼𝗈𝗂𝗍𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗌. 𝖬𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗌 “𝗂𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗂𝗌”. 𝖠𝗍𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗅𝖺́ 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈 𝗌𝖾 𝗅𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺 𝖺 “𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝖼̧𝖺̃𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗈́𝗋𝖼𝗂𝗈”: 𝗊𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖽𝗈𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝖽𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖿𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝗃𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾-𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗅𝖾𝗂 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆. 𝖤́ 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋, 𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗌 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌. 𝖤́ 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖯𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗈𝗌 𝖾 𝗈𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗈 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝗋𝗈 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋, 𝖽𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋, 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗋, 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖻𝗈𝗆 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌.

𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾, 𝗅𝖺́ 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺́, 𝗌𝖾 𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌 𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝖻𝗋𝖾 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺, 𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺́-𝗅𝖺 𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗏𝖾̂-𝗅𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗆𝖾𝗅𝗁𝗈𝗋, 𝗅𝖺́ 𝗇𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖺𝗌, 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 “𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 𝖺 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺”. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗌 𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝗓𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗈𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝗌; 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾́ 𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗆, 𝖼𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖼𝗎𝗂𝖽𝖺𝗆, 𝖾 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗋 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺 𝖺 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗏𝖾𝖾𝗆, 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺. 𝖭𝖺̃𝗈: 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗈𝖽𝖺 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖺-𝗈𝗌, 𝗉𝗈̃𝖾-𝗅𝗁𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗆 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖺 𝖺 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾. 𝖯𝗈𝗋𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗋 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖽𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗋 𝗈 𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝖾́ 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗈 𝖾 𝖾𝗋𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗋, 𝗌𝖾 𝗇𝖺̃𝗈 𝗉𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗋, 𝖽𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗎𝗂𝗋, 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗋 - 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝖻𝗈́𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗈𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖾 - 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗆𝗂́𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗌, 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗆 𝗌𝖺̃𝗈 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌?

* Jornalista-Grande repórter

IN "DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS" - 09/04/24 .