[crispinb]

Who is looking down on anyone? You get to that conclusion by making the least charitable gloss available in your original comment.

My own reaction to the article was surprise that anyone thought kissing was a human universal because it never occurred to me that it was. This was pre-reflective on my part (I had never given any thought to kissing at all). It wasn't an outcome of any exercise in cultural awareness, or thinking thereon.

I have no idea whether @throwaway41968's comment was intended in my way or was indeed 'smug' as you say. But you don't know either, and it's a disservice to conversation to assume the worst.

If I took your interpretive tack, then I would assume you chose the interpretation you did because you enjoy scrapping on the net and calling people 'smug' etc. Would that be justifiable or useful to the conversation? I think not.

[themoat]

Sorry. I can admit I was wrong. I haven't seen ellipses used to begin a sentence that asks a question in a way that wasn't flippantly dismissive before. Couple that with a throwaway account and I jumped to conclusions.

I probably should have asked what his comment meant before I spoke.

[crispinb]

Well you may not be wrong - I don't know any better than you. I'm just suggesting a principle of charity leads to better conversations. And I'm not pointing fingers - it's something I need to work on (ie. pause to think and/or ask for clarification, particularly before posting anything accusatory)