I think the commenter would agree with most of what you're saying - I just don't think they care. The argument would be that raising the quality of life of the Chinese citizen through accelerated economic development as brought on by IP theft outweighs the costs of the theft due to the fact that those costs are relatively minor. They'd claim that the precedents being set don't matter, because they were set by all those other counties throughout history already. The claim would be that while China may be breaking the rule de jure, the de facto playbook has already been written by convention.