What would be the harm?

[Angrboda]

You're still not engaging.  Harm -is- bad, that's the proposition.

And when asked why it is bad, you end up chasing your tail. I am engaging the proposition. You have failed to support it. If you cannot provide a rational reason for believing that harm is objectively bad, I'm under no compulsion to believe it.

Have I showed you the many ways in which harm is objective, yes.

No, you haven't. What way have you shown that harm is objective? I count two. First that harm is objective because it is contrary to goals. But goals are subjective, so that doesn't make harm objectively bad. The other thing you've appealed to is that harm might be bad based on something other than subjective desires. That something might be bad does not in any sense demonstrate that it is bad and so that objection goes nowhere. You keep claiming to have provided things that you have not in fact provided. If you feel otherwise, you need only show one thing that makes harm objectively bad, whatever it may be. And that one thing can't be that 'harm is bad' for the obvious reason.