>"Kids in grocery stores crying, yelling, in tantrums on the floor, trying to get their mothers to get them some candy is not a basis for how we should be acting as adults on the internet." //
You were doing alright with your argument until this.
1. Sweets are generally bad for you, they contain additives and such that give you no benefit and may be harmful. Excessive processed sugar consumption certainly doesn't seem to help a child. Consuming culturally relevant works may be bad for you, but not in the same way.
2. If you steal sweets from a shop then more have to be made to replace them. If you infringe copyright then there is no noticeable effect on the producer, as on the whole the extra "work" is all done by third parties.
3. Theft of sweets doesn't lead to extra sales, copyright infringement can. It doesn't always but there is an effect in play. Some of the greatest media buyers are also technically copyright infringers.
4. There are some limited ethical reasons for file sharing - one can rip media you own and encode it, but that's a waste of time and energy when compared with torrenting a file that is already prepared and being downloaded by others. Yes, there are ethical reasons to steal sweets - to give someone suffering a diabetic episode - but that's not the situation you offered for comparison so it's a moot point.
5. The socio-political situation is that there is often no more money available for a person to spend on media consumption than is being spent already. You've released a new movie that's made 5 times it's expenditure in the first week, why are you begrudging a poor person consuming it who wouldn't otherwise benefit from the work. With the sweets, you lose sales for sure as the theft prevents those same sweets being sold but that's not at all true with copyright infringement you still have your copy to reproduce as you will. With the media you lose nothing by allowing others to give away copies in a limited manner. [To the extreme it matters of course].
In short you made a cogent argument and then obliterated it with a silly analogy.
Let's look at your universal statement in that argument though:
>*You... are NOT ENTITLED to products or services in which you have not paid money for.* //
I disagree that people are not entitled to basic health care (a service) or clean water (a product) because they can't pay for it. You're going to have to come up with a more nuanced argument than that if you want to convince people you're speaking from a position of higher morality.
>*If you are pirating data, you should be admitting to yourself that you are stealing.* //
If you're pirating data then you're doing it wrong. You should copy data and - if and only if it's for the greater good - pirate tangible goods instead. If you're a pirate then admit that, if you're [merely] committing the tort of copyright infringement then admit that. Admitting the truth to yourself is better than labelling yourself as a criminal when what you are is a tortfeasant.
>*If you want something so badly, pay for it, or ignore it.* //
If you want to take part in the culture of our times and are poor what then? Copyright is such that even when vast, vast, returns have been made far and above the invested amounts, far beyond the expected returns of even the greatest of wages those works that have attained a cultural relevance are still locked up and only those who pay can gain lawful access. This is wrong. Culture is more important than that. Yes it's more important than letting those who're creators of creative works to go without any reward too but the balance has been forced far to one side by crooked dealings leaving an entirely unbalanced system.
Your statement works as well for media conglomerates as for those you try to apply it to - if you want everyone to be able to afford to pay to take part in the creative culture of our times instead of falling to tortuous malfeasance then pay for it. Pay more taxes, pay people on benefits an amount that enables this, pay your workers a high enough minimum that they can take part as consumers in that culture you're peddling. Or, y'know, ignore it and get back to swimming in your vast piles of money.
But what about the poor creators, who're working hard to make ends meet. What about them? Indeed, but nothing you've said helps them either. Little in the system stops them from being exploited to line the pockets of the rich media owners or the copycat corporate machines.
tldr; apart from your analogy, your premises and your conclusion everything pans out. Well done.
