Many of you will remember Darah from the BME World Tour where she was part of the team that went to Australia and New Zealand. What you may not know is this beauty hails from the wilds of Southwestern Ontario, where she runs wild and free through the forest. When not stalking her prey in the moonlight, she scours the underbrush pulling forth the spirits of the earth and succumbing to their powers. Through this divine communion she becomes more wolf than woman, forever bound to the world of the wilds. It is only in fleeting moments that she can be captured on film where we can see not only her marks and holes that define her exterior, but also catching a glimpse into her eyes, seeing the power and beauty that she manifests. The pelts she wears are not only there to protect her from the cold of the winter, but also to protect the winter from the fire inside her.
BME/News and Modblog highlight only a small fraction of what
darah’s a total babe. i knew from her first video post for the bme world tour entry that she’d be a final candidate… she’s super video-genic haha. very pleasant on the eyes : )
darah’s a total babe. i knew from her first video post for the bme world tour entry that she’d be a final candidate… she’s super video-genic haha. very pleasant on the eyes : )
i agree, she is very hot…..always nice to see her on here!
and she is from my town 🙂
…which is very cold at the moment
i agree, she is very hot…..always nice to see her on here!
and she is from my town 🙂
…which is very cold at the moment
darah is a fox in need of a wolverine predator. HAHA
darah is a fox in need of a wolverine predator. HAHA
Darah is a completely and utterly beautiful person both inside and out. I’m glad to call her one of my friends and can’t wait until I can hang out with her once again.
Darah is a completely and utterly beautiful person both inside and out. I’m glad to call her one of my friends and can’t wait until I can hang out with her once again.
@labelle: I was trying to think of ways to work in Hugh Jackman, but it didn’t seem to fit in anywhere.
@labelle: I was trying to think of ways to work in Hugh Jackman, but it didn’t seem to fit in anywhere.
Come back to New Zealand?…please 🙂
Come back to New Zealand?…please 🙂
simply stunning
simply stunning
makes me want to listen to “mewithoutyou” WOLF.AM.I
makes me want to listen to “mewithoutyou” WOLF.AM.I
I kinda like that picture but fur isn’t nice at all 🙁
I kinda like that picture but fur isn’t nice at all 🙁
This has to be the stupidest commentary of all you posts so far. Save the fairy tale crap for your online role-playing and just say here is a pretty girl with a few piercings for crying out loud!
This has to be the stupidest commentary of all you posts so far. Save the fairy tale crap for your online role-playing and just say here is a pretty girl with a few piercings for crying out loud!
Whoever the anonymous commenter is about the fur: I do not support the needless killing of animals for their fur or advocate the wearing of fur as an ignorant fashion choice. The pelts I have were all gathered from humane sources and the animals were in no way cruelly treated or otherwise harmed for their coats. I make damn sure of that before I own anything that is 100% real fur.
Whoever the anonymous commenter is about the fur: I do not support the needless killing of animals for their fur or advocate the wearing of fur as an ignorant fashion choice. The pelts I have were all gathered from humane sources and the animals were in no way cruelly treated or otherwise harmed for their coats. I make damn sure of that before I own anything that is 100% real fur.
Darah:
Flesh from humane sources? Please elaborate. Would you wear “negroskin” if the said person of color were raised in the most comfortable of conditions, groomed daily, fed delicious food, and killed in a painless fashion? Probably not, but 200 years ago, people of color were considered property, just as mink, lynx, fox, chinchillas, rabbits, and many other mammals are now. Perhaps 200 years from now, the idea of fur, leather, etc.. will be considered ridiculously unimaginable.
Done ranting.
Darah:
Flesh from humane sources? Please elaborate. Would you wear “negroskin” if the said person of color were raised in the most comfortable of conditions, groomed daily, fed delicious food, and killed in a painless fashion? Probably not, but 200 years ago, people of color were considered property, just as mink, lynx, fox, chinchillas, rabbits, and many other mammals are now. Perhaps 200 years from now, the idea of fur, leather, etc.. will be considered ridiculously unimaginable.
Done ranting.
Victor, that has to be the dumbest comment I’ve read in a long time.
Since when were people of colour ever killed for their skins or their meat used to nourish people??
Just because you’re a vegan doesn’t mean that someones choice to wear skin, fur, leather etc.. are wrong and ridiculous.
Victor, that has to be the dumbest comment I’ve read in a long time.
Since when were people of colour ever killed for their skins or their meat used to nourish people??
Just because you’re a vegan doesn’t mean that someones choice to wear skin, fur, leather etc.. are wrong and ridiculous.
Victor: I’m glad you are finished ranting because your argument made absolutely no sense at all. There are many harmless ways that fur/leather can be gathered, even though those ways are unfortunately not the norm. For instance, one of the pelts I own was given to me by a friend of my father’s. He is a park ranger, works on a wildlife management reserve, and has the authority and knowledge to use his home as a temporary shelter for wild animals who have fallen sick or injured. A few years ago, he came across a rabbit, who, if returned to the wild, would not have survived after his injuries healed, so my father’s friend kept him as a beloved and well-taken-care-of pet until he passed away. After the rabbit died, he skinned it, took the body into the woods so it could be used as nourishment for other animals, and gave the pelt to my father to give to me. It may sound inhumane or harsh, but in reality, the act held great sentimentality for us and was done with nothing but respect. The rabbit was never considered property; it was a loved creature that, if left to its own devices, would have suffered horribly without my father’s friend intercepting and giving it the proper care and medicine it needed to survive. So don’t give me your pseudo-superior crap about how wearing fur or leather is ultimately wrong just because you aren’t in favor of it. Newsflash: there are other worlds than yours, other lives, thousands of different people with thousands of different beliefs, so don’t come preaching to me about my clothing choices just because you are ultimately against them, regardless of reason or objectivity.
If you really want to get picky about clothing, then let’s throw down: do you know where your shoes come from? Your socks? The shirt you’re wearing right now? Or how about every article of clothing you own? How do you know that you aren’t walking around with the blood and tears of a sweatshop worker on your skin? Oh, but I’m sure that doesn’t bother you because as long as the clothing fibers weren’t gathered from animal sources, it’s acceptable. My argument may sound petty and dramatic, but no more so than your ridiculous “negroskin” dispute.
Victor: I’m glad you are finished ranting because your argument made absolutely no sense at all. There are many harmless ways that fur/leather can be gathered, even though those ways are unfortunately not the norm. For instance, one of the pelts I own was given to me by a friend of my father’s. He is a park ranger, works on a wildlife management reserve, and has the authority and knowledge to use his home as a temporary shelter for wild animals who have fallen sick or injured. A few years ago, he came across a rabbit, who, if returned to the wild, would not have survived after his injuries healed, so my father’s friend kept him as a beloved and well-taken-care-of pet until he passed away. After the rabbit died, he skinned it, took the body into the woods so it could be used as nourishment for other animals, and gave the pelt to my father to give to me. It may sound inhumane or harsh, but in reality, the act held great sentimentality for us and was done with nothing but respect. The rabbit was never considered property; it was a loved creature that, if left to its own devices, would have suffered horribly without my father’s friend intercepting and giving it the proper care and medicine it needed to survive. So don’t give me your pseudo-superior crap about how wearing fur or leather is ultimately wrong just because you aren’t in favor of it. Newsflash: there are other worlds than yours, other lives, thousands of different people with thousands of different beliefs, so don’t come preaching to me about my clothing choices just because you are ultimately against them, regardless of reason or objectivity.
If you really want to get picky about clothing, then let’s throw down: do you know where your shoes come from? Your socks? The shirt you’re wearing right now? Or how about every article of clothing you own? How do you know that you aren’t walking around with the blood and tears of a sweatshop worker on your skin? Oh, but I’m sure that doesn’t bother you because as long as the clothing fibers weren’t gathered from animal sources, it’s acceptable. My argument may sound petty and dramatic, but no more so than your ridiculous “negroskin” dispute.
Nano,
“…meat used to nourish people?”
Nourish!? Do you know what kills more people in the U.S. more than ANYTHING ELSE. According to the CDC, HEART DISEASE (which is usually linked to cholesterol, nonexistent in a cruelty free diet)
“Just because you’re a vegan doesn’t mean that someones choice to wear skin, fur, leather etc.. are wrong and ridiculous.”
I agree. I’m vegan because wearing the skin of another being is a bit ridiculous. 😉
I’m fully aware that slaves in early amerikkka weren’t eaten etc… I’m simply trying to draw parallels between the treatment of another race in and before the 19th century to the treatment of another species in modern society.
There are people in this world who are of a different color, nationality, etc… They look very different from myself. They speak a different language. I cannot communicate with these people; does that mean that they are any less entitled to a full life, in pursuit of happiness and avoidance of suffering? Of course not. I’m sure you’d agree with that. If not, you are obviously irrational and this conversation would be even more pointless than it already may be (ha!).
As human beings (a species of animal) we have a brain and a central nervous system. This system dictates to us what keeps us alive, and what kills us. Consuming food feels good, reproduction feels good, hydrating feels good, emptying your bowels feels good etc… All these things keep us ALIVE. Starving hurts, being ill hurts, being burned, cut, injured in general… hurts. Things of this nature can end life. As sentient beings we can all understand these two basic things: pleasure, and suffering. All morality, in almost every system of rational thought, boils down to that. If it impedes somebody’s pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of suffering, it is generally considered immoral.
Why is it that this only applies to our species? Fur bearing animals, “food” bearing animals, circus animals, dairy cows, dogs cats rats and primates used for the testing of our household products and egg laying chickens ALL have a central nervous system. By employing even a minimal amount of rational thought, the conclusion that animals probably interpret pleasure (and in essence SUFFERING) can then be drawn (to make it simple, think about any companion animal you’ve ever had!).
Why is it acceptable to treat animals they way we do? (and why is it unacceptable, or “dumb” for that matter, that I would think this way and not hesitate to express my sincere opinion on the matter).
Why is okay to wear fur, leather, or wool?
Why is okay to eat meat?
Why is it okay to drink the lactation of a cow or eat the menstrual waste of a bird?
I know this isn’t the appropriate forum for these questions, but I really can’t help myself. 😉
Nano,
“…meat used to nourish people?”
Nourish!? Do you know what kills more people in the U.S. more than ANYTHING ELSE. According to the CDC, HEART DISEASE (which is usually linked to cholesterol, nonexistent in a cruelty free diet)
“Just because you’re a vegan doesn’t mean that someones choice to wear skin, fur, leather etc.. are wrong and ridiculous.”
I agree. I’m vegan because wearing the skin of another being is a bit ridiculous. 😉
I’m fully aware that slaves in early amerikkka weren’t eaten etc… I’m simply trying to draw parallels between the treatment of another race in and before the 19th century to the treatment of another species in modern society.
There are people in this world who are of a different color, nationality, etc… They look very different from myself. They speak a different language. I cannot communicate with these people; does that mean that they are any less entitled to a full life, in pursuit of happiness and avoidance of suffering? Of course not. I’m sure you’d agree with that. If not, you are obviously irrational and this conversation would be even more pointless than it already may be (ha!).
As human beings (a species of animal) we have a brain and a central nervous system. This system dictates to us what keeps us alive, and what kills us. Consuming food feels good, reproduction feels good, hydrating feels good, emptying your bowels feels good etc… All these things keep us ALIVE. Starving hurts, being ill hurts, being burned, cut, injured in general… hurts. Things of this nature can end life. As sentient beings we can all understand these two basic things: pleasure, and suffering. All morality, in almost every system of rational thought, boils down to that. If it impedes somebody’s pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of suffering, it is generally considered immoral.
Why is it that this only applies to our species? Fur bearing animals, “food” bearing animals, circus animals, dairy cows, dogs cats rats and primates used for the testing of our household products and egg laying chickens ALL have a central nervous system. By employing even a minimal amount of rational thought, the conclusion that animals probably interpret pleasure (and in essence SUFFERING) can then be drawn (to make it simple, think about any companion animal you’ve ever had!).
Why is it acceptable to treat animals they way we do? (and why is it unacceptable, or “dumb” for that matter, that I would think this way and not hesitate to express my sincere opinion on the matter).
Why is okay to wear fur, leather, or wool?
Why is okay to eat meat?
Why is it okay to drink the lactation of a cow or eat the menstrual waste of a bird?
I know this isn’t the appropriate forum for these questions, but I really can’t help myself. 😉
don’t know what’s more annoying to read here.
self-indulgent modblog authors or self-indulgent vegans.
don’t know what’s more annoying to read here.
self-indulgent modblog authors or self-indulgent vegans.
The latter, for sure.
The latter, for sure.
Not even regarding the fact that Victor completely overlooked my comment and started attacking Nano, I’m just going to stop responding to this unnecessary drivel based on one simple fact: I cannot have a healthy debate with someone who thinks they are being awesomely rebellious by using spellings like “amerikkka.” The laughter in my room right now, you really should hear it.
Not even regarding the fact that Victor completely overlooked my comment and started attacking Nano, I’m just going to stop responding to this unnecessary drivel based on one simple fact: I cannot have a healthy debate with someone who thinks they are being awesomely rebellious by using spellings like “amerikkka.” The laughter in my room right now, you really should hear it.
I was actually typing a response to Nano’s post before yours went up. Sorry. I’ll have reply when I have a free minute. =]
I was actually typing a response to Nano’s post before yours went up. Sorry. I’ll have reply when I have a free minute. =]
Darah,
Thank you for responding to my question regarding the definition of “humane fur”. The buzzword (“humane”) tends to get thrown around in a pretty loose fashion. I could understand how, in the circumstances you’ve conjured for me, pelts from fallen animals could be worn as a celebration of that animals life. Unfortunately, I still feel in perpetuates the counterproductive idea that the skin of a dead animal is beautiful (I feel the same about faux fur). The rejection of imitation simply boils down to a personal choice for me. I suppose the same could be said for “mock meats” etc… where the possible negative effects are indirect, or even just theory.
“Oh, but I’m sure that [sweatshop labor] doesn’t bother you because as long as the clothing fibers weren’t gathered from animal sources, it’s acceptable.”
To answer another one of your questions, I do my best to be a conscious consumer. Most of the clothing that I wear is either second hand (which parallels your idea of humane fur) or manufactured in the U.S. Just because one supports the idea animal rights does not mean he/she rejects the idea of human rights. I can’t comprehend how one would jump to that conclusion.
Furthermore, I feel it is unfair that you’ve construed this conversation as “drivel”. I haven’t once personally attacked Nano or you. I haven’t poked fun at the way either of you chooses to spell. I haven’t called any of your comments “dumb”. I haven’t fabricated your position on a completely unrelated issue. I’ve simply asked prosaic questions (some of which I hoped to be thought provoking), hoping to incite rational / logical conversation.
Would you care to answer any of my questions? Or will you continue to be defensive?
Darah,
Thank you for responding to my question regarding the definition of “humane fur”. The buzzword (“humane”) tends to get thrown around in a pretty loose fashion. I could understand how, in the circumstances you’ve conjured for me, pelts from fallen animals could be worn as a celebration of that animals life. Unfortunately, I still feel in perpetuates the counterproductive idea that the skin of a dead animal is beautiful (I feel the same about faux fur). The rejection of imitation simply boils down to a personal choice for me. I suppose the same could be said for “mock meats” etc… where the possible negative effects are indirect, or even just theory.
“Oh, but I’m sure that [sweatshop labor] doesn’t bother you because as long as the clothing fibers weren’t gathered from animal sources, it’s acceptable.”
To answer another one of your questions, I do my best to be a conscious consumer. Most of the clothing that I wear is either second hand (which parallels your idea of humane fur) or manufactured in the U.S. Just because one supports the idea animal rights does not mean he/she rejects the idea of human rights. I can’t comprehend how one would jump to that conclusion.
Furthermore, I feel it is unfair that you’ve construed this conversation as “drivel”. I haven’t once personally attacked Nano or you. I haven’t poked fun at the way either of you chooses to spell. I haven’t called any of your comments “dumb”. I haven’t fabricated your position on a completely unrelated issue. I’ve simply asked prosaic questions (some of which I hoped to be thought provoking), hoping to incite rational / logical conversation.
Would you care to answer any of my questions? Or will you continue to be defensive?
Victor:
Your stance that my wearing of fur perpetuates a negative fashion choice does not make that my problem. Am I going to stop enjoying other aspects in my life just because other people may make poor choices with them? I’m not going to stop playing video games just because someone else plays them and suddenly thinks it’s acceptable to take a shotgun downtown and start firing. It’s the same principle: I make my own choices, so if I choose to wear any of the humanely gathered fur products I own in public, I still expect to be treated with respect.
“Or will you continue to be defensive?” You were the one who came in here and made the ridiculous comparison between me wearing fur and the wearing of human skin, which was not a logical argument to make. Blind assumption steered by irrational comparisons is never a good option when trying to make a point. Bottom line: you don’t agree with the fact that some people wear fur, regardless of the reasons behind their motivations. Nothing I say will change that, which is fine. I’m not trying to change your mind, merely paraphrasing what I said before: “there are other worlds than yours, other lives, thousands of different people with thousands of different beliefs…” So live and let live.
Victor:
Your stance that my wearing of fur perpetuates a negative fashion choice does not make that my problem. Am I going to stop enjoying other aspects in my life just because other people may make poor choices with them? I’m not going to stop playing video games just because someone else plays them and suddenly thinks it’s acceptable to take a shotgun downtown and start firing. It’s the same principle: I make my own choices, so if I choose to wear any of the humanely gathered fur products I own in public, I still expect to be treated with respect.
“Or will you continue to be defensive?” You were the one who came in here and made the ridiculous comparison between me wearing fur and the wearing of human skin, which was not a logical argument to make. Blind assumption steered by irrational comparisons is never a good option when trying to make a point. Bottom line: you don’t agree with the fact that some people wear fur, regardless of the reasons behind their motivations. Nothing I say will change that, which is fine. I’m not trying to change your mind, merely paraphrasing what I said before: “there are other worlds than yours, other lives, thousands of different people with thousands of different beliefs…” So live and let live.
First of all, I didn’t condemn you for wearing “humane fur”. I found comparison in my own behavior, and admitted such an argument was trivial. (“[My] rejection of imitation simply boils down to a personal choice for me. I suppose the same could be said for “mock meats” etc… where the possible negative effects are indirect, or even just theory.”)
How is my “negroskin” argument not logical? We are talking about the disregard for nonhuman animals having the ability to understand suffering. I was simply drawing the comparison between the archaic idea that blacks were once considered less than worthy of living a full happy life, and the way we as a whole currently regard the lives of other sentient species.
Why is it okay?
(Bare in mind it’s a “personal decision” for a pedophile to video tape a child performing lewd acts. It’s a “personal decision” for a serial rapist to repeatedly take advantage of the unwilling. It’s a “personal decision” for a consumer to turn a blind eye to the injustices of the majority of outsourced labor. So the “personal decision” cop-out will hold no weight)
Yes. Live and let live…. unless you’re delicious or soft.
First of all, I didn’t condemn you for wearing “humane fur”. I found comparison in my own behavior, and admitted such an argument was trivial. (“[My] rejection of imitation simply boils down to a personal choice for me. I suppose the same could be said for “mock meats” etc… where the possible negative effects are indirect, or even just theory.”)
How is my “negroskin” argument not logical? We are talking about the disregard for nonhuman animals having the ability to understand suffering. I was simply drawing the comparison between the archaic idea that blacks were once considered less than worthy of living a full happy life, and the way we as a whole currently regard the lives of other sentient species.
Why is it okay?
(Bare in mind it’s a “personal decision” for a pedophile to video tape a child performing lewd acts. It’s a “personal decision” for a serial rapist to repeatedly take advantage of the unwilling. It’s a “personal decision” for a consumer to turn a blind eye to the injustices of the majority of outsourced labor. So the “personal decision” cop-out will hold no weight)
Yes. Live and let live…. unless you’re delicious or soft.
*”Why is it okay?” reffering to my original series of questions.
“Why is okay to wear fur, leather, or wool?”
“Why is okay to eat meat?”
“Why is it okay to drink the lactation of a cow or eat the menstrual waste of a bird?”
(just to avoid confusion) 😉
*”Why is it okay?” reffering to my original series of questions.
“Why is okay to wear fur, leather, or wool?”
“Why is okay to eat meat?”
“Why is it okay to drink the lactation of a cow or eat the menstrual waste of a bird?”
(just to avoid confusion) 😉
I believe Victors point is more about painting a picture of IF animal skin is ok to wear, why is HUMAN skin not ok to wear, not matter how it was procured? WOULD you wear the skin of your mother after you cared for and loved her until her death to make some kind of symbolic gesture that you loved her at one point? What makes human life more important than an animals life?
Unfortunately, it always breaks down to that. Most non-vegan just say “well, animals are animals and humans are humans..” That’s not a logical comparison. We are all animals, we all experience pleasure and suffering. If you wore your mothers skin to love her and show you cared about her at one point, how many people are being murdered and stitched together to provide the fashion statement you will inevitably perpetuate?
If the Tuskegee Experiment was so awful, why is it ok to test on animals? If cannibals are abhorred, why is friend chicken ok? Would you make lamp shades out of your uncle, or use fine Asian skin to furnish a couch?
I’m not even Vegan. But I can recognize that it is immoral to someone who is vegan. They hold animals in the same regard as humans. They believe that an animals life is no different from your mothers life and when you are wearing the skin of a living animals, you might as well be wearing the skin of Jamal.
I believe Victors point is more about painting a picture of IF animal skin is ok to wear, why is HUMAN skin not ok to wear, not matter how it was procured? WOULD you wear the skin of your mother after you cared for and loved her until her death to make some kind of symbolic gesture that you loved her at one point? What makes human life more important than an animals life?
Unfortunately, it always breaks down to that. Most non-vegan just say “well, animals are animals and humans are humans..” That’s not a logical comparison. We are all animals, we all experience pleasure and suffering. If you wore your mothers skin to love her and show you cared about her at one point, how many people are being murdered and stitched together to provide the fashion statement you will inevitably perpetuate?
If the Tuskegee Experiment was so awful, why is it ok to test on animals? If cannibals are abhorred, why is friend chicken ok? Would you make lamp shades out of your uncle, or use fine Asian skin to furnish a couch?
I’m not even Vegan. But I can recognize that it is immoral to someone who is vegan. They hold animals in the same regard as humans. They believe that an animals life is no different from your mothers life and when you are wearing the skin of a living animals, you might as well be wearing the skin of Jamal.
Woo Victor! I’m on your side! Fur is cruel, just say no!
AND god damnit do I hate the hipsters that wear a raccoon tail hanging from their belt/purse/whatever! Worst trend I’ve seen in a while!
Woo Victor! I’m on your side! Fur is cruel, just say no!
AND god damnit do I hate the hipsters that wear a raccoon tail hanging from their belt/purse/whatever! Worst trend I’ve seen in a while!
Whilst I fully respect others’ rights to their beliefs and opinions, and their right to proclaim those beliefs/opinions to the world, I am growing tired of the militancy and conversionism I often encounter from vegans. In return for my acceptance of others, I also expect my beliefs to accepted, including my belief that animals can be reared, kept and killed for human use or consumption in a way that does not lead to my own moral objection, or indeed any prolonged suffering for the animal, and that I should take advantage of this whenever possible.
Victor: (Here I am playing devil’s advocate and do not intend this as a personal attack) If faced with a hypothetical situation where the only way to save your own life, or that of a loved one, was to sacrifice the life of an animal, what would you do? How about the life of a stranger? Your arguments so far suggest that, as a vegan, you equate the value of human and animal life. If you can honestly say that you would die in order to prevent the sacrifice of an animal, then I admire your strength of will. However, I suspect that many other vegans, probably including a majority of those who are so quick to attack non-vegans, would ultimately make the decision that the life of the animal (and quite possibly that of the stranger) was of less value than that of their own. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that the value attributed to life, human or animal, is both subjective and relative, and as such will never be truly governed by a universal moral code.
Whilst I fully respect others’ rights to their beliefs and opinions, and their right to proclaim those beliefs/opinions to the world, I am growing tired of the militancy and conversionism I often encounter from vegans. In return for my acceptance of others, I also expect my beliefs to accepted, including my belief that animals can be reared, kept and killed for human use or consumption in a way that does not lead to my own moral objection, or indeed any prolonged suffering for the animal, and that I should take advantage of this whenever possible.
Victor: (Here I am playing devil’s advocate and do not intend this as a personal attack) If faced with a hypothetical situation where the only way to save your own life, or that of a loved one, was to sacrifice the life of an animal, what would you do? How about the life of a stranger? Your arguments so far suggest that, as a vegan, you equate the value of human and animal life. If you can honestly say that you would die in order to prevent the sacrifice of an animal, then I admire your strength of will. However, I suspect that many other vegans, probably including a majority of those who are so quick to attack non-vegans, would ultimately make the decision that the life of the animal (and quite possibly that of the stranger) was of less value than that of their own. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that the value attributed to life, human or animal, is both subjective and relative, and as such will never be truly governed by a universal moral code.