...You could take it like I wasn't accusing you at all, firstly. Assumptions don't help that kind of discourse--but the wording is what gave that connotation, though it is taken both ways with a point in both.
Meaning, its a poke on your wording. Your post back there lacked the context that your post right now, has. It is not readily inferred, either. ._.
Though I do get how you saw it. I could've added detail to it--your part of 'you're not being selfish' also fills in that area where it doesn't detail anything.
However, one tiny bit which really needs correction:
Nobody actually does anything truly selfless; they can do things that are far more selfless than selfish, but every action has some token amount of self-serving motivation behind it, even if it's just 'I like helping people'.
The orange bit. It's a very common notion which has found numerous and credible application in the world, especially within the philosophy of Functionalism--but honestly, there are people who do things without any regard to the self--nor with any gain for their being, even if subconscious or unconscious; this philosophy is diluted by the secondary orange portion in which that found support...in the same criteria which supports the first orange part; application of personal viewpoint onto others, which does not necessarily apply to everyone, or rather reasoning that which applies to many people, must apply to all. The problem, in brief, is that it generalizes many, many people (too general to be a universal fact) and doesn't necessarily take in the personal viewpoint (how the person really thinks and acts), but rather the 'most common' viewpoint there, as it usually, typically infers that there's a motive behind the action that revolves around the self.
There are people who act with 'truly' selfless motives, and it is a challenge to believe that, given the status quo of many people today. (I like that level of insight there though; it could do with a bit more adjustment towards checking own beliefs, though I can really see what you mean).
I could expound on this if you want. Reminds me of all the debates we have in Philosophy and Psychology about it x3You could take my tone a bit less provocative though, given past experience with it ^ ^ I see my error in wording there, and apologies ahead if it was taken that way.
That...and I'm a bit concerned due to knowing the etymology and development of the word; while it does have neutral connotations, the negative connotations have been...applied(?)
not for a longer period of time, but in the present and modern time does it have a feeling of negative > neutral.
...By which I mean I'm fully aware of its non-negative meaning and am having trouble in saying that clearly.