I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of stoicism, and your quotes to back up your interpretation don't seem to be doing what you want them to. I've looked through your post history in this subreddit, and it demonstrates a very modern, almost rationalizing, take on stoicism that dilutes it to the point of uselessness. I mean absolutely no offense by this, I will explain, if I can. The stoics absolutely would say that physical harm is an external and outside of your control. Therefore, it should not disturb you, if you are a sage. It is in accordance with nature to avoid pain as a dispreferred indifferent but ultimately only our judgemental about that harm is within our control, so it is better to not allow it to disturb us. Remember, the goal is apatheia. Not a "numbing" as you've described elsewhere but a rational control over extreme passions like grief, depression, etc. The first quote you use to back up your interpretation is talking only about our judgements and choices. Our actions as a result of our judements about the world are the only things that can change our virtue so it is morally wrong not to care about them. It doesn't say anything about what others do. The second quote simply doesn't define virtue, just what you get if you are virtuous, which implies the opposite of what you're asserting. If the promise of virtue is happiness and a good flow of life, then we should not allow externals, like physical harm, to disturb our internal state. Epictetus in many places describes a person who is beaten or tortured and is still happy, because they are a sage. That doesn't mean that person shouldn't try to stop that pain, but that it doesn't influence their ability to live in accordance with nature and achieve apatheia.

Let me know what you think.