I'll acknowledge that harm and poison require a reference for where the harm is done, but I don't think it requires human interaction necessarily. We are able

I'll acknowledge that harm and poison require a reference for where the harm is done, but I don't think it requires human interaction necessarily. We are able talk about harm being done to insect populations or coastlines or any other inanimate objects. Again, humans, and their politics, aren't necessary. I don't find my quoting of the definition as being petulant. I was wanting to frame the conversation around a shared definition of the word rather than asserting requirements.