If I were to actually accuse you of something, I'd be pretty obvious about it instead of trying to include you in an explanation as to why pirates are generally so overly defensive.
For example, in my last post I'm accusing you of not reading my post properly. In the one before that I'm accusing you of ad hominem (as I've already admitted, pretty foolishly) and of pretty terrible psychoanalysis.
Ok, this is getting a little personal and I didn't intend that. I incorrectly inferred that your description of white knight, codblop, sheeple was directed at me. For that I apologise.
As for the Robert Ebert thing, a rebuttal is not a generally defensive attitude. It was a direct response to an accusation. If you are asked the (debatable given the negative connotation of the word "pirate") neutral question "Do you pirate games?" and the response is "Yes, but..." and then some form of excuse, it implies, or rather, I infer, that you are of the belief that piracy is either wrong or at least perceived as wrong by the person asking, or the audience listening to your response.
If someone said "Have you heard the latest Muse song?" I would reply "Yes." If you said "Have you heard the latest Justin Bieber song?" I would reply "Yes, but only because I was getting a lift to the station from my younger sister and she had it on in the car."
I don't feel the need to defend listening to Muse because they are awesome on a stick. I feel the need to defend hearing a Bieber song because I know that listening to it is morally wrong.
Admittedly this speaks more to my mentality than to that of every other person in the world, but as I'm the only person whose thoughts I can read, I kind of have to project that attitude onto the wider populace even if it is inaccurate.