Got booted. Am I the bad guy?

[Raelbo]

I was just pointing out to the idiots(not you) that kept insisting it wasn't a selfish act when by every definition of the word it is.

No it was not. Instead of resorting to ad-hominem and calling people idiots, maybe you need to educate yourself about the meaning of the word "selfish".

Simply acting in your own self interest is not in and of itself selfish. Selfishness is specifically about doing so unreasonably, excessively, and generally with little or no concern for the negative impact it has on others. The word absolutely carries very strong negative connotations.

Yes, the OP certainly acted in his own self interest. But at no point was he unreasonable, or excessive, or without regard for how his actions might have affected others. The party who did act selfishly was the hunter and the raid leader.

Here's a source that explains the difference

Selfishness is different than self-interest. Selfish people tend to be exclusively concerned about only themselves. They don’t care about anyone else and have no regard for other people. Selfish individuals may act in a manner that’s detrimental to others.

Having a healthy self-interest doesn’t preclude caring about others.

There is often confusion because the terms self-interest and selfish are erroneously used interchangeably.

And another source

In essence, selfishness involves satisfying your own needs at the expense of others. Healthy self-interest is simply taking care of yourself but not at the expense of others.

As I pointed out in a previous post, selfishness is often described as being the opposite of generosity. But some people confuse that with the absence of generosity. Not being generous doesn't mean that you're being selfish. It is entirely possible to be neither.

Absolutely nothing done by the OP fits the definition of the word selfish.

[Lubefist]

IRL example that happened few weeks ago. I was walking home and smoking a cigarette. Random drunk asks or rather tells me to give him a smoke, I refuse since I was running out and I didn't feel like it since he couldn't find the decency to ask nicely and he proceeds to throw a fucking beer can at me (missed) along with insults. Was I the selfish one for not giving away my last smoke to some rude prick I don't even know, even though I could have given it technically since I had to go to a store to buy new pack anyways?

[Raelbo]

IRL example that happened few weeks ago. I was walking home and smoking a cigarette. Random drunk asks or rather tells me to give him a smoke, I refuse since I was running out and I didn't feel like it since he couldn't find the decency to ask nicely and he proceeds to throw a fucking beer can at me (missed) along with insults. Was I the selfish one for not giving away my last smoke to some rude prick I don't even know, even though I could have given it technically since I had to go to a store to buy new pack anyways?

No. He was the selfish one because he had an unreasonable expectation that you should be helping him to your detriment.

A very simple test for this:
- Was he any worse off for your actions? No (he was in exactly the same place he was before you came along)
- Were you any worse off for his actions? Yes (he insulted and tried to harm you)

[Darththeo]

No it was not. Instead of resorting to ad-hominem and calling people idiots, maybe you need to educate yourself about the meaning of the word "selfish".

Simply acting in your own self interest is not in and of itself selfish. Selfishness is specifically about doing so unreasonably, excessively, and generally with little or no concern for the negative impact it has on others. The word absolutely carries very strong negative connotations.

Yes, the OP certainly acted in his own self interest. But at no point was he unreasonable, or excessive, or without regard for how his actions might have affected others. The party who did act selfishly was the hunter and the raid leader.

Here's a source that explains the difference





And another source



As I pointed out in a previous post, selfishness is often described as being the opposite of generosity. But some people confuse that with the absence of generosity. Not being generous doesn't mean that you're being selfish. It is entirely possible to be neither.

Absolutely nothing done by the OP fits the definition of the word selfish.

I really don't care about an opinion pieces which is what your sources are. They aren't using the definition, they are using their view of what the word means over the definition. The issue is people confuses calling a person selfish vs calling an act selfish. A selfish person is someone who nearly exclusively cares about themselves, but any person can commit a selfish act. And if your primary concern is your own self interest, you can be viewed rightfully as selfish in that instant.

- - - Updated - - -

No. He was the selfish one because he had an unreasonable expectation that you should be helping him to your detriment.

A very simple test for this:
- Was he any worse off for your actions? No (he was in exactly the same place he was before you came along)
- Were you any worse off for his actions? Yes (he insulted and tried to harm you)

It is erroneous to assume that only a single person can be selfish in any circumstances. Selfishness as nothing to do with someone being worse off anyway, so your questions cannot determine selfishness. Even undo harm doesn't determine selfishness.

Selfishness is exists in degrees. If someone asks me for an apple, and I refuse to give it. They scream and yell because I refused. Yes, they are being selfish ... but how does their action mean my reason for not sharing isn't selfish? It doesn't follow.

[A Dark Knight]

yea kinda dickish on your part

[Raelbo]

I really don't care about an opinion pieces which is what your sources are. They aren't using the definition, they are using their view of what the word means over the definition.

Dude, quit it already. @Mehrunes already did a thorough job of dismantling your nonsense.

Here is the actual definition: "Selfishness is being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness".

It has been linked already, but some people seemingly have difficulty in understanding the concept, hence why I resorted to posting practical explanations.

Also, it would be helpful, and a lot less smug, if you provided citations of your own instead of simply lecturing me that mine are in inadequate. Or, in the very least warrant your (false) assertion that my citations are not sticking to the valid definition.

The issue is people confuses calling a person selfish vs calling an act selfish. A selfish person is someone who nearly exclusively cares about themselves, but any person can commit a selfish act.

This just seems like semantic nonsense to me. Surely the definition of a selfish person is a person who commits selfish acts? I don't see why it's necessary to draw a distinction between the two even if we are specifically talking about actions.

Regardless, how exactly is what the OP did considered a "selfish" act as opposed to simply an "act of self interest"? Where was the harm in the act that was committed by the OP?

Seriously, if you look at the definition, the hunter and RL were clearly the only party acting selfishly.

And if your primary concern is your own self interest, you can be viewed rightfully as selfish in that instant.

Not according to any credible definition or source I can find. At best it's a misuse of the word selfish.

For an act to classify as selfish, it must meet the criterion of being excessively in one's self interest, which means to the extent of having little or no regard for the potential detriment to others.

Nothing about what the OP did meet that criterion.

[Darththeo]

Dude, quit it already. @Mehrunes already did a thorough job of dismantling your nonsense.

lol ... no, not even close. If that is dismantling to you, you have a pretty low standard there.

Here is the actual definition: "Selfishness is being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness".

It has been linked already, but some people seemingly have difficulty in understanding the concept, hence why I resorted to posting practical explanations.

Also, it would be helpful, and a lot less smug, if you provided citations of your own instead of simply lecturing me that mine are in inadequate. Or, in the very least warrant your (false) assertion that my citations are not sticking to the valid definition.

Those have been provided. And no, yours is A definition of selfishness not THE definition.

This just seems like semantic nonsense to me. Surely the definition of a selfish person is a person who commits selfish acts? I don't see why it's necessary to draw a distinction between the two even if we are specifically talking about actions.

Regardless, how exactly is what the OP did considered a "selfish" act as opposed to simply an "act of self interest"? Where was the harm in the act that was committed by the OP?

Seriously, if you look at the definition, the hunter and RL were clearly the only party acting selfishly.

Per your view of the definition. OP even fits the definition you are providing. He didn't share because he was concerned EXCLUSIVELY for his own advantage. He clearly stated no, before considering the Hunter's view ... so, exclusive is met. Yes, he was less selfish than the Hunter in the story, but another person's action are irrelevant to determine whether or not the person in question is acting selfishly.

And there is a difference between you are being selfish vs you are a selfish person. Selfishness does not require harm, period. You do not need to harm someone to be selfish. No definition supports that.

Not according to any credible definition or source I can find. At best it's a misuse of the word selfish.

For an act to classify as selfish, it must meet the criterion of being excessively in one's self interest, which means to the extent of having little or no regard for the potential detriment to others.

Nothing about what the OP did meet that criterion.

Or per you own definition EXCLUSIVELY. In this case, OP was exclusively concerned with his own gain. You can claim he considered trading, but nothing supports that, in fact it appears he stated no immediately when asked meaning he could not have considered the Hunter's view point.

Your only argument against OP being selfish is that the Hunter and Raid Leader were MORE selfish. That's it. You are abusing the definition, declaring the one you THINK supports you as THE ONLY CORRECT DEFINITION when it doesn't. Selfishness is NOT a comparison between two people, all that matter is the person in question. Bringing up the actions of the Hunter and Raid Leader as evidence for OP not being selfish is 100% dishonest here.

[Raelbo]

It is erroneous to assume that only a single person can be selfish in any circumstances.

I made no such assumption, nor is there any implied mutual exclusivity in the way I presented it. I asked two independent questions.

Selfishness as nothing to do with someone being worse off anyway, so your questions cannot determine selfishness.

Citation?

It's there in the definition. If you can't see it, I have posted a few citations where it is explained. It's the fundamental difference between acting in self-interest and acting selfishly. And it is the reason why selfishness is universally regarded as an unpleasant trait.

Even undo harm doesn't determine selfishness.

It took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say, but I am guessing you mean "undue" harm?

Selfishness is exists in degrees. If someone asks me for an apple, and I refuse to give it. They scream and yell because I refused. Yes, they are being selfish ... but how does their action mean my reason for not sharing isn't selfish? It doesn't follow.

By definition, selfishness is about excessive self interest. I am not saying that some acts of selfishness can't be more excessive than others. So whether your refusal to give the apple classifies as selfish, and if so, to what degree, depends on context.

By no means is saying 'no' to some requests for charity selfish. But saying 'no' to every request might be, assuming a society in which it is expected that everyone gives something to charity.

[Darththeo]

I made no such assumption, nor is there any implied mutual exclusivity in the way I presented it. I asked two independent questions.

By asking the second question about the other person when it is irrelevant is making that assumption that the actions of the other person matters to you being selfish.

Citation?

It's there in the definition. If you can't see it, I have posted a few citations where it is explained. It's the fundamental difference between acting in self-interest and acting selfishly. And it is the reason why selfishness is universally regarded as an unpleasant trait.

Nope, it is a person's opinion that's the difference. And it isn't. A lot of people, including myself, do not find selfishness an unpleasant trait. But rather excessive or more accurately unreasonably selfishness is a negative trait. It is not universally regarded as negative. And the most likely reason selfishness is consider unpleasant trait because of the "sin" of greed that is past around. But, greed isn't just simple selfishness.

Selfishness is NOT inherently bad.

By definition, selfishness is about excessive self interest. I am not saying that some acts of selfishness can't be more excessive than others. So whether your refusal to give the apple classifies as selfish, and if so, to what degree, depends on context.

By no means is saying 'no' to some requests for charity selfish. But saying 'no' to every request might be, assuming a society in which it is expected that everyone gives something to charity.

Or exclusively self interest. Which OP meets in this example. Your own definition you provide don't support you.

[Saltysquidoon]

By definition, selfishness is about excessive self interest. I am not saying that some acts of selfishness can't be more excessive than others. So whether your refusal to give the apple classifies as selfish, and if so, to what degree, depends on context.

By no means is saying 'no' to some requests for charity selfish. But saying 'no' to every request might be, assuming a society in which it is expected that everyone gives something to charity.

Dude don't even bother. It's been shown (via this conversation happening multiple times this thread) Darththeo is just shitposting for attention.

It's blatantly obvious the OP was not being selfish because he wasn't acting excessively in his own self-interest (as he had already handed off a trinket). Anyone arguing acting in perfectly reasonable self-interest is being 'selfish' has at best a poor grasp on the English language or is trolling.

[Raelbo]

Those have been provided. And no, yours is A definition of selfishness not THE definition.

As I already said, you need to provide citations of your own instead of bullshit vague references to something that supposedly refutes what I am saying.

Per your view of the definition. OP even fits the definition you are providing. He didn't share because he was concerned EXCLUSIVELY for his own advantage. He clearly stated no, before considering the Hunter's view ... so, exclusive is met.

No, it doesn't fit "my" definition at all. That's just you taking a potential ambiguity in one definition (of which there are many), ignoring the rest of the definition, and trying to play semantics to reach a conclusion inconsistent with the entirety. It's a case in point of you erroneously misusing the term in lieu of self interest.

Look, I am not going to deny that the word "selfish" is often used erroneously. What I am saying is that it is not correct, and if we go with the way you'd like to believe the word is defined, it loses most of its meaning. Simply put, if you're going to be so liberal with the use of the word "selfish" to apply it to every act that is in one's self interest, then you may as not bother applying it any of them. This is especially relevant when the entire case against the OP is that he allegedly "acted selfishly" - in which is implied that doing so is dickish.

Yes, he was less selfish than the Hunter in the story, but another person's action are irrelevant to determine whether or not the person in question is acting selfishly.

I never said that the hunter's selfishness had any bearing on whether the OP was being selfish. I was illustrating the contrast between what is selfish and what is not and hinting at the underlying irony.

And there is a difference between you are being selfish vs you are a selfish person. Selfishness does not require harm, period. You do not need to harm someone to be selfish. No definition supports that.

I would argue that "lack or regard for others" directly implies negative outcomes for others based on selfish actions/behaviour. But fair enough, I will concede that while a harmful outcome to someone else is evidence of selfishness, not every act of selfishness act will result in harm. So while demonstrating that the hunter was harmed would certainly make a strong case for claiming that the OP was being selfish, demonstrating the lack of harm to the hunter doesn't disprove selfishness. It is a simply a rebuttal to that potential line of attack.

That being said, it doesn't lesson the burden on you to make a case that his behaviour was selfish - specifically in a manner which would support the assertion the being so makes him "the bad guy" (as stated in the OP).

And that is the crux of it. You're sitting trying to argue that under your interpretation of the word, his behaviour classifies as selfish in order to make the case that he is the bad guy. But unless your definition of "selfish" actually makes being selfish "bad" then all you're doing is strawmanning. So the question of "where is the harm" (in what the OP did) is pertinent to the question at hand, even if you want to exclude it from your definition of "selfish".

You can claim he considered trading, but nothing supports that, in fact it appears he stated no immediately when asked meaning he could not have considered the Hunter's view point.

Your only argument against OP being selfish is that the Hunter and Raid Leader were MORE selfish. That's it. You are abusing the definition, declaring the one you THINK supports you as THE ONLY CORRECT DEFINITION when it doesn't. Selfishness is NOT a comparison between two people, all that matter is the person in question. Bringing up the actions of the Hunter and Raid Leader as evidence for OP not being selfish is 100% dishonest here.

I didn't say any of that, so really, who is actually being dishonest here?

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of people, including myself, do not find selfishness an unpleasant trait. But rather excessive or more accurately unreasonably selfishness is a negative trait.

Ok got it. Rather than correct your misunderstanding of the word, you've chosen to simply redefine it. It's not an uncommon way of doing things in the world we live in, although I do have to question the wisdom in it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's blatantly obvious the OP was not being selfish because he wasn't acting excessively in his own self-interest (as he had already handed off a trinket). Anyone arguing acting in perfectly reasonable self-interest is being 'selfish' has at best a poor grasp on the English language or is trolling.

I tend to prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. But in this case his argument is entirely counter productive. The only reason that a debate over whether the OP's action was "selfish" or not, is because being selfish in that specific way would be considered dickish. Darththeo trying to argue for a different definition of selfish - one that carries no implied dickishness - is just muddying the proverbial waters.

Even if he wants to insist in sticking to his own understanding of the word, it would be far more constructive to just accept that - in the context of this thread - selfish should be taken to mean dickish. Done.

[Darththeo]

As I already said, you need to provide citations of your own instead of bullshit vague references to something that supposedly refutes what I am saying.

When you actually do the same. You cite sources that are someone else's opinion, not sources I am wrong. Your sources put an arbitrary barrier between acting in self interest and selfishness for no other reason except to avoid the supposed inherent negativity of selfish.

No, it doesn't fit "my" definition at all. That's just you taking a potential ambiguity in one definition (of which there are many), ignoring the rest of the definition, and trying to play semantics to reach a conclusion inconsistent with the entirety. It's a case in point of you erroneously misusing the term in lieu of self interest.

Look, I am not going to deny that the word "selfish" is often used erroneously. What I am saying is that it is not correct, and if we go with the way you'd like to believe the word is defined, it loses most of its meaning. Simply put, if you're going to be so liberal with the use of the word "selfish" to apply it to every act that is in one's self interest, then you may as not bother applying it any of them. This is especially relevant when the entire case against the OP is that he allegedly "acted selfishly" - in which is implied that doing so is dickish.

It isn't that liberal. You just object to it being used in according to the actual definition are wish to put arbitrary parameters on it and then claim others who don't share those parameters are being too liberal.

I never said that the hunter's selfishness had any bearing on whether the OP was being selfish. I was illustrating the contrast between what is selfish and what is not and hinting at the underlying irony.

"I am not doing that, but I really am."

I would argue that "lack or regard for others" directly implies negative outcomes for others based on selfish actions/behaviour. But fair enough, I will concede that while a harmful outcome to someone else is evidence of selfishness, not every act of selfishness act will result in harm. So while demonstrating that the hunter was harmed would certainly make a strong case for claiming that the OP was being selfish, demonstrating the lack of harm to the hunter doesn't disprove selfishness. It is a simply a rebuttal to that potential line of attack.

That being said, it doesn't lesson the burden on you to make a case that his behaviour was selfish - specifically in a manner which would support the assertion the being so makes him "the bad guy" (as stated in the OP).

And that is the crux of it. You're sitting trying to argue that under your interpretation of the word, his behaviour classifies as selfish in order to make the case that he is the bad guy. But unless your definition of "selfish" actually makes being selfish "bad" then all you're doing is strawmanning. So the question of "where is the harm" (in what the OP did) is pertinent to the question at hand, even if you want to exclude it from your definition of "selfish".

Lack of regard means insufficient consideration of others. OP didn't consider, IN THE MOMENT HE SAID NO, the possible benefit to the Hunter ... meaning he had a lack of regard for the potential benefit of the gear to the hunter. Therefor, it fits. You are complaining about other people playing semantics when you are doing that exact same thing.

I didn't say any of that, so really, who is actually being dishonest here?

You by several miles. You CONSTANTLY keep bring up what the RL and Hunter did when there is no reason except to muddy the water at best. So either, you are wasting time, muddying the water or don't understand that is the argument you are making.

Ok got it. Rather than correct your misunderstanding of the word, you've chosen to simply redefine it. It's not an uncommon way of doing things in the world we live in, although I do have to question the wisdom in it.

It's not a redefinition of the word. There is nothing in the definition that is inherently negative, you assert your own view of it being a negative onto the word. Your view of the word is not part of the definition. There are many words that DO have an inherently bad definition that people have chosen to ignore, selfish is NOT one of those words.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being selfish, period. Claiming otherwise is stating that your view of a word is the only correct one. I am not claiming YOU are wrong to view it as a negative word, that's your opinion, what I am stating you cannot use your view to claim the word is objectively negative.

I tend to prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. But in this case his argument is entirely counter productive. The only reason that a debate over whether the OP's action was "selfish" or not, is because being selfish in that specific way would be considered dickish. Darththeo trying to argue for a different definition of selfish - one that carries no implied dickishness - is just muddying the proverbial waters.

Even if he wants to insist in sticking to his own understanding of the word, it would be far more constructive to just accept that - in the context of this thread - selfish should be taken to mean dickish. Done.

Hello pot, I am Kettle. Stop lying.

[Mashanerz]

I can understand why they'd be upset with you, but I can also understand your perspective. This is also why I prefer personal loot over group loot. If this were a couple of xpacs ago you'd probably be saying "Joined a group for a specific item and then had it ninjad"

I think booting you was the dick move.

[Darththeo]

Dude don't even bother. It's been shown (via this conversation happening multiple times this thread) Darththeo is just shitposting for attention.

It's blatantly obvious the OP was not being selfish because he wasn't acting excessively in his own self-interest (as he had already handed off a trinket). Anyone arguing acting in perfectly reasonable self-interest is being 'selfish' has at best a poor grasp on the English language or is trolling.

Nope, I am not. I am making my argument. I don't care for attention.

Because the only reason "acting is self interest" even exist is because people assert an always present negative to selfish which does not exist in the definition. So clearly, it isn't I would has a poor grasp of the English language. But what do I know, you think demanding stuff and swearing at people is against the law, I guess you never worked in any customer service capacity.

[baskev]

Regarding loot rules for me it is acutally the opposite, usually there are no rules in my pugs and until now i ever even felt like asking in the first place.

Regarding other sources of residium, i can guarantee you no i could not (pvp conequest is uo to current reward and i allready had a mythic id with my guild, also hc darkshore was not up either), at least no 460 piece of azerite only a bunch of 445 in like mythic 0 dungeons (and the same scenario could arise in that case)

Regarding me not linking the other hunters DPS, i can provide a screenshot of my interface, with my settings my dmg meter is set to only display 9 rows, only way to include me and the hutner this post is about was to exclude the top dps (i still listed how much he did though)

@qwerty123456 i reread your post and have to apologize, when i replied to you i still had another persons reply in my mind and mixed them up, sorry for doing that.

Weird....maybe a server thing, or a time of the week i join them.

Okay....still think you should and they should have made loot rules clear. There is a reason why i ask for them when i join. And random pugs that i play with on hc level and above with groups of people ask for them. Groups of people i mean friends in the same group.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh? Asking for loot rules was prudent when ML was available to PuGs (primarily to combat ninja looting) but this has not been a thing for a long time. If you choose to do it that's on you but I can assure you this is not the norm for PuGs.

In normal pugs...yeah.
but hc and above i see them asking/promoting it a lot. must be server/time thing.
And if you play with a group that has several guild members in it. you can pretty much be ashured that they will ask it.

[Saltysquidoon]

Nope, I am not. I am making my argument. I don't care for attention.

Because the only reason "acting is self interest" even exist is because people assert an always present negative to selfish which does not exist in the definition. So clearly, it isn't I would has a poor grasp of the English language. But what do I know, you think demanding stuff and swearing at people is against the law, I guess you never worked in any customer service capacity.

Aristotle noted a real divide between selfishness and self-interest, so did Seneca. Adam Smith (who is basically the most selfish man in the universe) wrote about "selfish self-interest", given he bothered to phrase it that way that would intimate he believed there was a difference between the two concepts, lest his phrasing be redundant. Jacques Maritain argued (in the Aristotelian tradition) that it is a mistake to see altruism and selfishness as binary instead of scalar.

Jeez, I don't know chief, it sure seems like there's a lot of people that consider the distinction between 'selfish' and "self-interested" as a little more than arbitrary... And they don't work in retail.

[Darththeo]

Aristotle noted a real divide between selfishness and self-interest, so did Seneca. Adam Smith (who is basically the most selfish man in the universe) wrote about "selfish self-interest", given he bothered to phrase it that way that would intimate he believed there was a difference between the two concepts, lest his phrasing be redundant. Jacques Maritain argued (in the Aristotelian tradition) that it is a mistake to see altruism and selfishness as binary instead of scalar.

Jeez, I don't know chief, it sure seems like there's a lot of people that consider the distinction between 'selfish' and "self-interested" as a little more than arbitrary... And they don't work in retail.

Nope, still arbitrary. They are putting measures that they feel is sufficient to make the distinction. They can make arguments for why they feel that is the case, it is still arbitrary. I do admit that I am being liberal in that definition here, but just because someone makes the argument that there is a divide, does not mean there is an actual divide.

There are many people that believe it is impossible for humans to not act in a manner that isn't on some level selfish that true altruism does not exist. I agree it is scalar, but where you put the line is arbitrary based on personal preferences, not any hard objective fact.

I pointed out customer service because you literally made the argument that swearing and demanding stuff is against the law. Anyone who worked retail or other forms of customer service knows it isn't.

[Raelbo]

<snip>

Alright, you win.

I accept that there are 2 equally valid schools of thought on the matter. Yours and everyone else's

PS: Given how much you've butchered your interpretation of what I said (I mean really, I should know what I said...) it's hardly surprising that you have so much trouble correctly interpreting the stated meanings of words.

[sarym13]

Don't loot during raids. Simple as that. If I want to D.E, Scrap, whatever. I check the loot on the boss, any gear I see drop I just leave it on corpse and get it from the mail later.

Win/win

[Darththeo]

Alright, you win.

I accept that there are 2 equally valid schools of thought on the matter. Yours and everyone else's

PS: Given how much you've butchered your interpretation of what I said (I mean really, I should know what I said...) it's hardly surprising that you have so much trouble correctly interpreting the stated meanings of words.

Don't be a hypocrite. You don't even understand that you are viewing something as objective when it is subjective and once again, my view ISN'T JUST ME.

There is literally an episode of friends that is about how no act is truly selfless as all have aspects of selfishness. And they weren't in the first show to reference such a concept. Stop pretending my view is just mine own and everyone else agrees with you.