This is the only forum-style site I regularly interact with, and I must admit that I rarely try to remember another username here. The effect is that I interact with ideas, not people. And there is some deep connection between behaviors I might label as addiction and a felt sense of isolation.

FWIW, I have a few professor friends who are generally liberal but were required to write yearly personal diversity statements by their administrations, and knew they were rewarded for putting pathos and hardship in their stories. They hated everything about it but felt that it would set their careers back to speak out against it. I think it's very valuable to have unpolitical discussions about these things, align on deep values, and come to a deeper understanding of how we can support one another--rather than falling into camps and pointing fingers.

Is it better for 100 families to live for years with a vegetative loved one with the most realistic hope being that a few to emerge profoundly affected and never their full selves again, or is it better for those hundred families to get to grieve?

The pain of a loved one's continued quasi-existence, plus the difficulty of their life if they ever are to recover, make it so that the compassionate personal choice is to say "once the best estimated probability of my recovering robustly is clearly below P%, let me go". The value of P is a decision to be made carefully, and with deep consideration for ourselves, our loved ones, and for all of humanity.

I do agree that "leather for every app" starts to deviate away from the definition of a true skeuomorph. One could argue that the iPhone was trying to evoke the personal organizer of yesteryear, and therein lies the skeuomorphism, but since the functionality of an iPhone was so much broader than a personal organizer, it may be conceptual smear to call that skeuomorphism too (but I still think a good argument could be made that it is skeuomorphism, since the functional form of a prior design is still being evoked intentionally for aesthetic / emotional cueing purposes).

But this ignores the humanity of people on the other side of the issue--people who may have legitimate moral and philosophical questions about very difficult and complex issues.

It does seem that acting locally, within the realm of actual human relationships rather than alienating impositions of authority, would likely result in much greater good in the long term.

If the Pope decides that it doesn't actually accomplish much good to force the issue when Catholics as a whole aren't ready for it, he could either try to advance women's rights without tipping the boat over, or he could just not bother.

This Pope is choosing to try to be a voice for good, and seems to do so from a deep desire for moral justice in an imperfect world. I'm grateful for that.

Living like that is corrupting. When you treat humans like objects, the question of your starting intentions is really secondary.

Mencius went to see King Hui of Liang. The king said, “Venerable sir, since you have not counted it far to come here, may I presume that you are provided with counsels to profit my kingdom?”

Mencius replied, “Why must Your Majesty use that word ‘profit’? What I am provided with are counsels to benevolence and righteousness, and these are my only topics.

If Your Majesty say, ‘What is to be done to profit my kingdom?’ the great officers will say, ‘What is to be done to profit our families?’ and the inferior officers and common people will say, ‘What is to be done to profit our persons?’ Superiors and inferiors will try to snatch this profit one from another, and the kingdom will be endangered.”