You clearly don't have much experience with debating copyright instead your trying to shoehorn in your argument where they don't make sense.
"You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply"
A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view.
"When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music"
That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt.
"What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?"
It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling.
"Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality"
My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.
"You copy a product you devalue the product by increasing supply"
A digital product already has infinite supply. The question isn't if copying affects supply, but if it affects demand. If someone copy something they would never have bought the economic damage to the author is theoretically zero. Copyright doesn't even deal with "increasing supply" as a intrinsic thing. If you spend year creating recipes for a restaurant that become successful and someone opens a restaurant next door serving the same things (and thereby increasing supply) the original restaurant has little to no copyright claim. The same is true in other fields. Even universal human rights doesn't deal with intellectual property in this way. There's simply little basis for this view.
"When you pirate music you harm only the creator of the music"
That you "only harm the creator" is objectively false, since even if you prescribe to great harm being done by piracy it's not only the creator, but the rightsholder that gets hurt.
"What does a typical weak, cowardly human tell himself when he commits a crime?"
It's when you don't have good arguments nor is well read you have to resort to this type of name calling.
"Yours is the lazy rebuttable without foundation in reality"
My arguments are absolutely based in the current discourse.