No policy prescription should start from ethical principles because deontology, to have a robust existence, must be blind to Alethia. Such Ethical principles as are 'action guiding' can't give rise to 'recommendations' as opposed to unilateral commandments of an indefeasible type.

Following Aristotle, I would say your thesis here is represents indefeasible Akrebia masquerading as Economia. One may certainly speak of 'Bio-politics' but to do so while imposing an artificial type of precision, which the subject matter can't sustain, is wholly mischievous and counterproductive. What you have actually given us is an argument for separate 'wet-markets' of a traditional sort, as opposed to the 'cold-chains' of Agro-business.
On the other hand, I may have done less than justice to you in this post-https://socioproctology.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-derek-parfit-golem.html

Definitely, but you're mixing ethical premises that are, to at least some people, distinct -- one regarding the wellbeing of humans, the other regarding that of animals. Getting your foot in the door by leveraging current events and a widely accepted premise, only to then spring a less popular premise on people, might lead one to wonder to what extent the arguments genuinely concern the first premise / current events...

Very well said Peter Singer. If my father, Jon Wynne-Tyson, were able he would say so too.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Singer.

I guess "abolish ICE" is really a hard-line position on immigration. The Democrats (most of them) aren't "soft on immigration". They are way beyond "soft on immigration". They don't believe in the very idea of borders. Why should they? Immigrants provide the Democrats with cheap labor, cheap votes, cheap virtue-signaling, and a massive new constituency for expanding the welfare state. What's their not to like? What could possibly go wrong?

By the moderation staff, I assume - the ones who filter out the incoherent ad-hominems and hate speech that every comment section on the internet attracts. They do a great job keeping this comment section civil, no disrespect to them.

The article was about Blair contemplatnig a return to public life, and how his wealth of experience would be welcome. I suggested that the appropriate venue for his return would be the ICC. Reason being that he was instrumental to selling the Iraq War to the American public and especially to legislators and the business class. We love a nice English accent here, and G.W. Bush isn't the most convincing person, so Blair's role was indispensible.

Whether the case for that war was outright fraud or extreme negligence is debatable. But at the time I had a hard time conceiving of a thought process that would justify rewarding either one. "Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" wasn't working for me at that time.

I can see how it is offensive to put the man's most significant legacy to the world in such a negative light. I was a little surprised that this all was controversial enough to cross the line. It's really ok, just an interesting marker of where "responsible discourse" lies.