"I always make a point not to argue with people on the internet. Arguing with internet people is like playing chess against a pigeon. Not matter how good you are at chess the pigeon will simply knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like it won."
I just think it's trite and arrogant. It's also hypocritical.
There's also the use of analogy formatted as a joke, like it's so hilarious to compare a sincere human being to an impertinent bird. A really unfunny, smug, middlebrow format.
Another objection I have is to copypasta. It's not an original or insightful or even funny comment. You could probably come up with something better yourself. But if you're going to do it, you could at least 1. Fix the typo and 2. Give attribution (if appropriate).
So who is more like the pigeon? The guy who uses other people's words to demean other people's conversation, and in some cases, creativity? Or the guy who attempts to make a series of logical points, thoughtfully and earnestly?
How the OP sounds to me: "hahaha i am a great chess playerr andd u r jst a pidgin doin a shit LOL :P"
Oh, and try having a conversation with a real human being sometime. They are just as retarded in person as they are on their computers, for the most part. And for the least part? Intelligent people use the internet too. If you can't locate any of them, that's your fault, not the internet's.
It's a supposedly humorous comment that betrays the heavy heart and dense mind of its author and its quoter.
All of what I wrote occured to me in an instant, as soon as I had read it. No over-analysis, just analysis. I hope my analytical nature has not affronted you. But you are the one who asked me to expand on my initial, more laconic reply, after all.