Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You believe that in order to be emotionally or rationally involved in a political debate, it is required that it af

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You believe that in order to be emotionally or rationally involved in a political debate, it is required that it affect you directly. Is that what you are trying to say? So is it your belief that, for example, politicians in Denmark only involve themselves in matters that concern them directly? They do not debate over or attempt to alter the fate of the poor, the sick, or the disenfranchised? Do authority figures of various kinds not intervene when they see a chance to prevent an injustice or correct a false belief? I must say, from your description Denmark sounds like a very unique place on this Earth. Far more unusual than I had been led to believe by the people I know who come from there or have visited the place. Also, could you explain what connection you think Denmark's legal standards of evidence have to the correct behavior of a person in political debate? Specifically, how is it relevant that Denmark's laws require civil complaints to be brought by the affected party?