I have said time and again that I place no weight on semantic arguments. While yes, according to your dictionary definition, you could call being delayed 'harm.' However, my point is that the delay is so trivial, and so commonplace, that any mature person would disregard it. I don't argue semantics because only losers do. The idea that you are harmed by a delay is true in a trivial way, and that is enough for you, but not for me. Frankly, what's really being harmed is your ego. You think you are too important to be bothered by other people's problems. This is why the 'harm' is not objective. I am not troubled by delays caused by protests. You are. Thus, the problem lies within you. Or me, from a different perspective.
Let us make an analogy: If a delay caused by protesters 'harms' you, then so too must a similar delay caused by the efforts of a rescue crew to save people injured in an accident (and we have all been delayed by that). Do you rage at the rescue crew for 'harming' you? No you do not. You might say that the injuries suffered by the people involve in the accident might justify the delay to you, and you would be perfectly correct. Now. We have a problem in the United States in that one portion of the population is unfairly harmed by the other portion. If a rescue effort meant to alleviate actual harm to an injured person is enough to justify your largely imaginary 'harm' from delay, why should a protest against actual harm, with the aim of rectifying the problem, not similarly justify it?
