Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Sheldon]

They're not equivalent claims though, unless by bad you mean using it is immoral? The word bad here is a little ambiguous perhaps, do we mean bad as in immoral or bad as in bad for our health? The latter I would accept is objectively true, the former I am dubious about. 

The claim of metaethical utilitarian realism is that the badfors -are- the moral facts, yes.  

I think for clarity we can say that the assertion that using crack is objectively bad for your health, is a different assertion to using crack is immoral. I see how the first rests on objective evidence, but not the second assertion. 
I also I see harm as an expedient metric for moral discourse, I don't see the  fact that moral discourse among humans, generally uses it, as translating to it is objectively true that causing harm is immoral. Theological and religious arguments claim objective moral absolutes exist, yet set harm aside as a metric, a deity that commits cats of genocide, or tortures a newborn baby to death, or endorses slavery for example, is considered perfectly moral.

I can't write off observational evidence, anecdotal evidence, and scientific evidence all converging on an apparent fact that is itself plainly and openly expressed in direct self reports of the phenomena as mere opinion. 

No more can I, but I don't see those facts as demonstrating the conclusion that causing harm is objectively immoral. Does an objective moral fact exist if no humans exist for example? As I say I think we view harm as a good metric as it is expedient to avoid the consequences of not doing so, and this might well be hardwired in us by evolution. 

 I am satisfied by the mountain of evidence which persuades me of what I feel should be a rather trivial statement of fact.  I include harm in moral consideration because when we moralize we are considering harm.  

This (underlined) is rather circular don't you think? 
I include harm in moral discourse, as the consequences of not doing so seem undesirable. FWIW theists who claim objective moral absolutes exist, don't use harm as a metric, how many religious philosophers are there, is this a mountain of evidence that a deity is an essential or objective part of our moral discourse? Lets test the claim and see:
I include god in moral consideration because when we moralize we are considering god.  
I only hanged one word. 

Harm is one of the things that morality is about.  A brute fact.

I agree, but have to ask myself why? Is there anything beyond subjective assertion, an appeal to subjective consensus, or reasoned consequentialism?

If we omitted harm we would not be talking about morality anymore. 

For me personally yes I'd agree, but even if every person agreed,  all I see here is a universally shared subjective opinion. though of course even among objectivists and those who believe in moral absolutes, this isn't true, theists defer to god before worrying about harm, though one could of course argue that they are simply projecting harm onto anything that doesn't defer to their deity's moral diktat. 

You don't tend to hear about necessary evils from people who think they've done nothing objectively wrong.  But, yes, I agree that once we've decided to do evil shit we're going to have a hard time justifying that by any rational or objective thought process.  It's just bang bang time.  That's who we are. In an objectivists understanding, this is moral failure.

Well is they think they've done nothing morally wrong, then the we here comes to a matter of opinion surely? Not everyone who causes harm is simply content to do wrong, some have formed the opinion their actions are in fact moral. I suspect that you would accept it is not an absolute claim that causing harm is immoral? Just as I do. So who decides when and where and how? What objective facts determine this?