You're the one who made the original claim, so the burden of proof rests on you. You can't just make a claim with no proof, and then when someone challenges you, say "prove me wrong." That's not how it works. Because YOU made the initial claim, it's up to YOU to defend why you're right before other people defend why they think you're wrong.
Why do you continue preaching to the choir? I already said I think that piracy is morally wrong. My problem is that you continue to generalize all pirates as "not paying because they don't want to/are too lazy to," and continue to ignore the fact that many of them have given reasons BESIDES flat-out not wanting to pay (such as a flat-out inability to afford games). Does that make piracy right? Still no, in my opinion. But you refuse to acknowledge that not all pirates are just selfish and lazy, and instead some simply can't even pay the developers of these games even if they wanted to.
And since you're just making a copy of a game, not truly stealing it (like the sports car you mention), there's really not much of a comparison between actual theft and piracy. Theft not only prevents a profit from the seller, but actually STEALS something of value from them. When you pirate a game, you're not walking into GameStop and stealing a physical copy from them, which they can never sell again. You're making an unlicensed copy without affecting the "stock" of the digital product. Like I said for the billionth time, I think it's still wrong. But my point is there's so many holes in your view of this that it's not even funny.