Silly argument often used against piracy

First of all, I want to state that I oppose piracy and I clearly see that it's damaging the industry. It's wrong, plain and simple.

However, I cannot help but find many of the arguments used against piracy very silly, this one in particular (as quoted from an internet forum) :

"it's simply impossible to defend any sort of piracy whatsoever. You wouldn't steal a Ferrari on the pretext "I could never afford one of these". It's as simple as that. If you wouldn't steal a tangible item such as a watch, necklace, car, why steal software? What makes software fundementally different? To anyone with any sort of higher brain function, the answer is nothing."

To this guy, it's obvious that stealing a Ferrari you could never afford is the same as pirating a game you could never afford. In fact, he thinks it's so obvious that anyone with any sort of higher brain function would immediately agree with him.
I think it's the other way around - anyone with "any sort of higher brain function" would see that this is simply not the case.
Now, the reason why is so obvious that I think most people have figured it out themselves by now but I'll state it anyway :

If there is a Ferrari you could never afford and you decide to steal it, that means monetary loss to the owner of the Ferrari (be it a private person or company or whatever). The car is lost, they have lost something.

If you could never afford a game and pirate it, they have lost nothing. They still have the game and you could never pay them in any case. They have lost absolutely no profit.

That's the difference.