My "argument" is that nuance cannot be turned into simplicity. If "you" want to "win" this "argument" you have to get the other side to see nuance, not attempt to find the simplicity in your argument...

Well, thanks for elaborating on your motives. I can see what you're getting at now.

In my case, I was trying to "get you to see nuance" by pointing out how nuanced "your" line had become compared to the platitudes most people spew. Then you ended up simplifying it afterwards, although I still don't quite see how the simplification holds.

Where your panties are getting twisted is where you're somehow trying to make me take a side here.

It was more inferring that you were taking a side due to your opening thesis statement, "there's no moral argument for piracy". If by that you meant "there is no argument that can posit piracy as a morally virtuous act", then I'd agree with you, in the same way that I believe there's no moral argument in support of capricious abortion. But if you mean "there is no moral argument against anti-piracy", that's where I'd start begging to differ.