No, I'm trying to point out how the above two arguments, which seem to be quite prevalent on the Internet, are too simple and are generally used to shut out debate instead of doing anything useful. Oh, I know there are definitely cogent, nuanced arguments against piracy. But it's been my experience that there are way too many Internet commenters who use the two ahem "straw men" I pointed above, and I was wondering whether we could do anything about those people, because as you mentioned, they are hurting the side that argues in favour of intellectual property by not actually letting anyone talk about the issue. I don't believe in using arguments like that. They're ad-hominem and altogether too dismissive of the humanity of the other arguers. However, this is simply a form of "if you say anything to the contrary, you are simply trying to excuse away your own thefts." Your essay would be just as cogent if this line were omitted. That being said, if there were something I would "own up" to, it would be phrased as such: I infringe copyrights. Not just by making unauthorized copies of creative works, but also by creating unauthorized derivative works. So just to be clear, are you denying the "anti-piracy" side their argument on grounds of moral simplicity?
In light of all that, it looks like you've oversimplified the argument a few shades. I've seen very few people other than, I dunno, ad men for "The 20" portion of my movie theater experience ever argue that "stealing is stealing, period." I've seen plenty more people supply the below arguments, pro and con. Don't dismiss one side of the argument based on (don't say it don't say it I'm gonna say it) strawman.
So quit and stop whining about it.
Or else, jesus, have the stones to own up to what you're doing rather than trying to snake your way out of culpability.