Human rights violation. [Archive]

CharlieFinley

February 23rd, 2013, 07:47 PM

As all know "Government" "Religion" "corporations" Violate human rights everyday
Hey, guys! Guess who I am. Okay, go!
The all the stuff "verbs" the "bad quotations" and "grammar shitty."
The not the knowing of meaning word "rights" bad the knows.

MisterChicken, you're a fucking moron. You fill your posts with words you think amount to a convincing argument, when all you're actually doing is saying, "bad thing. other bad thing. sovereignty. rights. blah."

I'm afraid I have to agree with Harry here, the government does not violate any of our human rights. They may have laws and policies that you disagree with but it's not a violation. Also i don't see the need for this thread, what's the question?The government does occasionally violate our rights (see the current restrictions on the 4th Amendment), but they do not as a matter of course.

MisterChicken

February 23rd, 2013, 08:06 PM

Hey, guys! Guess who I am. Okay, go!
The all the stuff "verbs" the "bad quotations" and "grammar shitty."
The not the knowing of meaning word "rights" bad the knows.

MisterChicken, you're a fucking moron. You fill your posts with words you think amount to a convincing argument, when all you're actually doing is saying, "bad thing. other bad thing. sovereignty. rights. blah."

The government does occasionally violate our rights (see the current restrictions on the 4th Amendment), but they do not as a matter of course.

Making a Ad hominem?

Harry Smith

February 23rd, 2013, 08:12 PM

Making a Ad hominem?

you argument is so weak the common cold could break it, you post links which are from crackpot websites, you called all israelis terrorists, you said that Hezbollah were freedom fighters. Your anti-semitic to say the least.

Please just stop being such a twat

MisterChicken

February 23rd, 2013, 08:20 PM

you argument is so weak the common cold could break it, you post links which are from crackpot websites, you called all israelis terrorists, you said that Hezbollah were freedom fighters. Your anti-semitic to say the least.

Please just stop being such a twat

http://socialistunity.com/galloway-lecture-on-palestine/ So it HAS TO BE FROM CNN?FOX? they dont" report that great" so if its from these "crackpot" website why are they sourceable?

CharlieFinley

February 24th, 2013, 03:34 AM

http://socialistunity.com/galloway-lecture-on-palestine/ So it HAS TO BE FROM CNN?FOX? they dont" report that great" so if its from these "crackpot" website why are they sourceable?

A socialist blog? You know literally anyone with internet access could've made that, right?

Harry Smith

February 24th, 2013, 04:11 AM

http://socialistunity.com/galloway-lecture-on-palestine/ So it HAS TO BE FROM CNN?FOX? they dont" report that great" so if its from these "crackpot" website why are they sourceable?

who said it is reliable, just because someone writes it on a website dosen't make it true, have you ever written a history paper

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 07:27 PM

As all know "Government" "Religion" "corporations" Violate human rights everyday
Drug laws:Violation of Ownership of body
Sex laws(Im NOT talking about rape):Violation of human natural process
Taxes:(Land taxes the most):Violation of Earth rights to use land free of extortions
No Sovereignty.
No civil rights.
Forced into laws and Religion

Drug Laws:

Present your case as to why you think you have 'ownership of body'.

Sex laws:

Present your case as to why laws are not natural processes, but human sex is, when both of which came from human beings.

Taxes:

Present your case as to exactly what an 'Earth right' is and as to why you think you have it.

Forced into laws and Religion:

I am not forced to not steal and not kill, nor am I forced to be religious. I'm not forced into any law or any religion, nor are you.

MisterChicken

February 25th, 2013, 07:46 PM

Drug Laws:

Present your case as to why you think you have 'ownership of body'.

Sex laws:

Present your case as to why laws are not natural processes, but human sex is, when both of which came from human beings.

Taxes:

Present your case as to exactly what an 'Earth right' is and as to why you think you have it.

Forced into laws and Religion:

I am not forced to not steal and not kill, nor am I forced to be religious. I'm not forced into any law or any religion, nor are you.

Drug laws:SO you want a government to tell you want to do with yourself?
Sex laws:Laws=Man made,you dont see dogs running around in vest putting others in cages.
Taxes:I dont want to be stolen from JUST TO LIVE ON A PIECE OF LAND.

CharlieFinley

February 25th, 2013, 07:57 PM

Drug laws:SO you want a government to tell you want to do with yourself?
Sex laws:Laws=Man made,you dont see dogs running around in vest putting others in cages.
Taxes:I dont want to be stolen from JUST TO LIVE ON A PIECE OF LAND.

So your argument is that men should be like dogs.

That doesn't seem to be working out well for you, does it?

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 07:58 PM

Drug laws:SO you want a government to tell you want to do with yourself?

Don't recall saying that anywhere. Recalled asking you to present why you have ownership of body.

Sex laws:Laws=Man made,you dont see dogs running around in vest putting others in cages.

Don't recall saying anything about vested dogs putting others in cages, either. Recalled asking you to present as to why sex laws are violations of human natural processes, even though sex laws as you just explained are human natural processes, like sex.

Taxes:I dont want to be stolen from JUST TO LIVE ON A PIECE OF LAND.

I do believe that it's your choice as to whether or not you pay to live on that land; wouldn't exactly constitute stealing. Could you explain?

workingatperfect

February 25th, 2013, 08:04 PM

Don't recall saying anything about vested dogs putting others in cages, either. Recalled asking you to present as to why sex laws are violations of human natural processes, even though sex laws as you just explained are human natural processes, like sex.

Since when are laws a natural human process?

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 08:06 PM

Since when are laws a natural human process?

Since when are they not?

Humans have sex.
Humans eat food.
Humans drink liquid.
Humans make laws.

Draw me a distinction that renders laws to not be a natural human process, because from where I'm standing, it certainly seems to be a natural process that humans undertake.

workingatperfect

February 25th, 2013, 08:26 PM

Since when are they not?

Humans have sex.
Humans eat food.
Humans drink liquid.
Humans make laws.

Draw me a distinction that renders laws to not be a natural human process, because from where I'm standing, it certainly seems to be a natural process that humans undertake.

Sex, Food/Water are, along with sleep, the most important and deeply rooted psychological desires and needs that humans have. All animals have sex, eat, drink and sleep.

"Natural Process: A process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings)"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Making laws is something humans choose to do to keep order in society. It is not something that they must do, and it is not something you will find in nature.
Food, sleep and water are things the body needs to stay alive. Sex is something needed not only to keep the species alive, but is something caused by hormones - something natural. Cats go in heat and want to have sex. It is a natural, psychological as well as biological desire/need. Cats don't make laws.

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 08:43 PM

Sex, Food/Water are, along with sleep, the most important and deeply rooted psychological desires and needs that humans have. All animals have sex, eat, drink and sleep.

So far, the above has not left us the idea that laws are any different.

"Natural Process: A process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings)"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yet again, nothing above has yet to give us the idea that laws are any different.

Making laws is something humans choose to do to keep order in society. It is not something that they must do, and it is not something you will find in nature.

Nature produced humans, humans produced laws, thusly, the original antecedent to laws, is nature. Thusly, laws are found in nature. (I could also point to the laws of physics and be tongue-and-cheek with what a 'law' is, but I won't be so crude.)

Furthermore, I'd like an explanation as to your reasoning when it comes to, "It is not something that they must do."

Being that the only observable case where we see humans existing is, well, this planet, and on this planet, being the only observable case where humans exist, those same humans have made laws. How are we to say that it could be the case that humans do not make laws from this knowledge?

The only information regarding humans and laws that we have (humans being on this planet and making laws) points to, well, humans making laws. How is it that you conclude from this that humans do not need to make laws, when in the only case we have observed, they do?

Food, sleep and water are things the body needs to stay alive.

Wants* in order to stay alive. Bodies do not need to stay alive. If they did, no one would ever die.

Sex is something needed not only to keep the species alive, but is something caused by hormones - something natural.

Laws are made due to human thought and action - something natural.

Or are we to say that for some arbitrary reason, human thought and action are somehow not natural, even though they result from nature?

Cats go in heat and want to have sex. It is a natural, psychological as well as biological desire/need. Cats don't make laws.

Simply because cats do not make laws does not mean that laws are unnatural.

workingatperfect

February 25th, 2013, 09:17 PM

So far, the above has not left us the idea that laws are any different.
They're very deeply rooted desires, as far into our unconscious as you can go. Laws are the result of more of a conscious want for some sort of societal order.

Yet again, nothing above has yet to give us the idea that laws are any different.
Except that laws don't occur in nature, but rather by human intent. Therefore, laws are not a natural human process.

[/quote]Nature produced humans, humans produced laws, thusly, the original antecedent to laws, is nature. Thusly, laws are found in nature. (I could also point to the laws of physics and be tongue-and-cheek with what a 'law' is, but I won't be so crude.)[/quote]

That's incredibly shaky logic. Nature made humans, humans made pizza. Therefore, pizza is found in nature. And let's go with this laws of physics thing. The laws of physics describe things found in nature. The laws themselves are not. Humans developed the laws of physics to describe natural processes.

Furthermore, I'd like an explanation as to your reasoning when it comes to, "It is not something that they must do."

Being that the only observable case where we see humans existing is, well, this planet, and on this planet, being the only observable case where humans exist, those same humans have made laws. How are we to say that it could be the case that humans do not make laws from this knowledge?

The only information regarding humans and laws that we have (humans being on this planet and making laws) points to, well, humans making laws. How is it that you conclude from this that humans do not need to make laws, when in the only case we have observed, they do?

Humans aren't going to drop dead (naturally, so don't bring up murder or something) if laws were not in place. They would not suddenly become deathly ill and die off, eventually leading to the extinction of the human race. Now, that's not to say that humans won't start killing each other because it's now deemed "ok" But a lack off laws will not naturally kill off the human race.

Wants* in order to stay alive. Bodies do not need to stay alive. If they did, no one would ever die.

I'm sorry, are you high? Bodies CAN and DO die from starvation, dehydration and sleep deprivation...

Laws are made due to human thought and action - something natural.

Or are we to say that for some arbitrary reason, human thought and action are somehow not natural, even though they result from nature?

I'm gonna go back to my pizza example. Pizza is made due to hunger, something natural, but that doesn't mean pizza is natural. Cucumbers, those are natural. Pizza? Man made.

Simply because cats do not make laws does not mean that laws are unnatural.

No, but laws are unnatural because animals in general, do not make laws. laws do not occur in nature. Let me guess, religion is natural too? Education? Music? By all of the arguments you've given, these things are all natural human processes.

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 09:35 PM

They're very deeply rooted desires, as far into our unconscious as you can go. Laws are the result of more of a conscious want for some sort of societal order.

Except that laws don't occur in nature, but rather by human intent. Therefore, laws are not a natural human process.

Would need you to explain exactly why things that occur by human intent are not natural.

Given your statement above, this argument is sound:

1. I eat food through human intent
2. If something occurs through human intent, then it is not natural.
______
3. Therefore, my eating food is not natural.

That's incredibly shaky logic. Nature made humans, humans made pizza. Therefore, pizza is found in nature.

And... Pizza is found in nature. What are we to say instead, pizza is supernatural?

And let's go with this laws of physics thing. The laws of physics describe things found in nature. The laws themselves are not. Humans developed the laws of physics to describe natural processes.

The written laws of physics describe things found in nature****

The laws of physics themselves are what is found in nature. Similarly, a biologist writes about living things, but this does not mean that living things are not found in nature.

Humans aren't going to drop dead (naturally, so don't bring up murder or something) if laws were not in place. They would not suddenly become deathly ill and die off, eventually leading to the extinction of the human race. Now, that's not to say that humans won't start killing each other because it's now deemed "ok" But a lack off laws will not naturally kill off the human race.

And your problem lies within this conditional. It is erroneously founded. We only have evidence of human beings producing laws. So, to speak of if human beings were to be WITHOUT laws is nonsensical, as we have no case where that is true in order to conclude truths about it. It would be as if I was to speak of a triangle with four sides. We have no example of such a case, and so cannot conclude truths about it.

I'm sorry, are you high? Bodies CAN and DO die from starvation, dehydration and sleep deprivation...

You seem to be confused, because what I said was, "Wants* in order to stay alive. Bodies do not need to stay alive. If they did, no one would ever die."

This has nothing to do with whether or not bodies DO die, or CAN die. I only said that the body does not NEED to stay alive.

I'm gonna go back to my pizza example.

Most amusing quote I've read all day long. But back to business:

Pizza is made due to hunger, something natural, but that doesn't mean pizza is natural. Cucumbers, those are natural. Pizza? Man made.

And why is it that items that are man made are therefore not natural? I don't understand this equivocation between (being produced by man) and (being unnatural). That seems to be where the issue in my understanding is. Why is it that you think human beings producing something immediately entails that the something is somehow not natural? Human beings produce babies; are babies unnatural? I'm confused by your reasoning.

No, but laws are unnatural because animals in general, do not make laws. laws do not occur in nature. Let me guess, religion is natural too? Education? Music? By all of the arguments you've given, these things are all natural human processes.

Yes, they would be considered natural. Why do you think they are not?

workingatperfect

February 25th, 2013, 10:03 PM

OK, I could quote you on that whole thing, but that would be unnecessary because there's only one thing we aren't agreeing on here. That is, can something man made be natural? The answer is no.

The definition of the word natural is "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

The definition of man made is "not of natural origin; prepared or made artificially; 'man-made fibers'; 'synthetic leather'"

A scientist could explain it much more efficiently than me, but hopefully that clears up what I'm talking about when I say something is not natural.

Also, yes I was confused by this:

You seem to be confused, because what I said was, "Wants* in order to stay alive. Bodies do not need to stay alive. If they did, no one would ever die."

This has nothing to do with whether or not bodies DO die, or CAN die. I only said that the body does not NEED to stay alive.
Because I was merely talking about what is necessary for a person to survive. I'd rather not get into the subject of whether or not a body needs to live and why people die, as it's even more off topic than we are right now.

Quiddity

February 25th, 2013, 10:13 PM

OK, I could quote you on that whole thing, but that would be unnecessary because there's only one thing we aren't agreeing on here. That is, can something man made be natural? The answer is no.

The definition of the word natural is "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

The definition of man made is "not of natural origin; prepared or made artificially; 'man-made fibers'; 'synthetic leather'"

A scientist could explain it much more efficiently than me, but hopefully that clears up what I'm talking about when I say something is not natural.

There we go. Now to clear this up for my ignorance, why is something caused or made by humankind considered not natural?

Considering pizza:

1. Nature caused the existence of humans.
2. Humans caused the existence of pizza.
3. The definition of the word natural is "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
__________
4. By hypothetical syllogism, nature caused the existence of pizza. (#1 and #2)
5. By definition, pizza is not natural. (#3)
6. By definition, pizza is natural (#3 and #4)

How do we reconcile this state of affairs? Since, it is valid to conclude that nature caused pizza to exist, because, nature caused humans which in turn caused pizza, so thusly, pizza could not have been without nature having been. However, we also say that it's not valid, because people also are a cause of pizza. So in this case, what do we conclude?

workingatperfect

February 26th, 2013, 12:59 AM

There we go. Now to clear this up for my ignorance, why is something caused or made by humankind considered not natural?

Considering pizza:

1. Nature caused the existence of humans.
2. Humans caused the existence of pizza.
3. The definition of the word natural is "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
__________
4. By hypothetical syllogism, nature caused the existence of pizza. (#1 and #2)
5. By definition, pizza is not natural. (#3)
6. By definition, pizza is natural (#3 and #4)

How do we reconcile this state of affairs? Since, it is valid to conclude that nature caused pizza to exist, because, nature caused humans which in turn caused pizza, so thusly, pizza could not have been without nature having been. However, we also say that it's not valid, because people also are a cause of pizza. So in this case, what do we conclude?

But that's an indirect relationship. If I make a bracelet, we can't conclude that my parents made the bracelet just because they made me. That's basically what you're saying. Nature made humans - Humans made pizza - Nature made pizza. In my example, parents made me - I made a bracelet - my parents made the bracelet. See why that logic doesn't work? Just because humans are produced from nature, doesn't mean nature gets to take credit for everything humans do. It just doesn't work that way. Why? Er, well, I honestly don't know. Ask a science or philosophy teacher.

The distinction is made in that something that could not have existed without the aid of humans, it is not natural. It has to be a direct force of nature.

Quiddity

February 26th, 2013, 01:11 AM

But that's an indirect relationship. If I make a bracelet, we can't conclude that my parents made the bracelet just because they made me.

That's basically what you're saying. Nature made humans - Humans made pizza - Nature made pizza. In my example, parents made me - I made a bracelet - my parents made the bracelet. See why that logic doesn't work? Just because humans are produced from nature, doesn't mean nature gets to take credit for everything humans do. It just doesn't work that way. Why? Er, well, I honestly don't know. Ask a science or philosophy teacher.

I thought we were speaking of causation due to the definition you provided of,
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
not the idea of 'having made'. However, I'd say it still works in such a relationship of having made, as well.

Going back to the idea of causation, your parents caused you to exist, you caused the bracelet to exist, and so, your parents caused that bracelet to exist, because they made you, and without you, no bracelet.

If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

The distinction is made in that something that could not have existed without the aid of humans, it is not natural. It has to be a direct force of nature.

Well if that's the case, then everything is natural. Nothing that's here at the moment actually needs humans in order for it to exist by necessity; from cars to pizzas to airplanes. Also, why do you not consider humans to be a direct force of nature?

workingatperfect

February 26th, 2013, 01:29 AM

I thought we were speaking of causation due to the definition you provided of,
"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."
not the idea of 'having made'. However, I'd say it still works in such a relationship of having made, as well.

Going back to the idea of causation, your parents caused you to exist, you caused the bracelet to exist, and so, your parents caused that bracelet to exist, because they made you, and without you, no bracelet.

If A then B.
If B then C.
Therefore, if A then C.

Sorry. Making, causing, close enough. Again, that's indirect.

Well if that's the case, then everything is natural. Nothing that's here at the moment actually needs humans in order for it to exist by necessity; from cars to pizzas to airplanes. Also, why do you not consider humans to be a direct force of nature?

No, pizza would not exist without humans. Pizza does not just grow from the ground or assemble itself. Pepperoni does not slice itself. Cows don't milk themselves and make cheese from it. The now magically assembled pizza does not cook itself. Humans do all that.

Humans are a direct force of nature, as is any animal, or plant or mineral. I never said they weren't. If I did, I apologize, as that was a typo.

Quiddity

February 26th, 2013, 01:46 AM

No, pizza would not exist without humans. Pizza does not just grow from the ground or assemble itself. Pepperoni does not slice itself. Cows don't milk themselves and make cheese from it. The now magically assembled pizza does not cook itself. Humans do all that.

Of course they do, however, they are not the only item in existence that could do any of that.

Have you ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem? It may sound ridiculous, but it is a truth, still, and it's extrapolated far beyond a monkey typing at a keyboard when you get into the mathematics. It even flows into the discussion we're on right now. The theorem is generally as follows, but you can look up the specifics if you want to:

Some arbitrary device that has no distinct pattern, but a series of available inputs from a domain, if given an infinite amount of time, can produce any and all resultant finite combinations in the range of outputs. *This theorem is not a theory, as it has been proven true.

This relates to our discussion because it implies that, given an infinite amount of time, nature can make it's own pizza.

Humans are a direct force of nature, as is any animal, or plant or mineral. I never said they weren't. If I did, I apologize, as that was a typo.

Well if "Humans are a direct force of nature", then going by the very definition we've been speaking of,

"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

We'd be left with a contradiction.
Since, now anything that humans cause (make) is by the definition, caused by nature, because "Humans are a direct force of nature." So we can conclude then, by the definition of 'natural' provided, that human creations are natural.

However, by the stipulation after the semicolon in the definition above, we can also conclude that that human creations are not natural. The stipulations before and after the semicolon now imply contradictions to one another.

Given the state of affairs aforementioned, we'd have no choice as rational persons but to conclude that the definition provided for 'natural' is a faulty one. During proof by contradiction, if the original assumption (in this case, our definition) leads us to a contradiction (as it just has) then this implies that the assumption (our definition) is false.

I'm not saying that what human beings do is necessarily natural, myself, however I am saying that based on what has been given to us, we'd have to at least conclude that the definition provided is false due to it implying a contradictory state of affairs; if all other attributes are true, as we seem to think (such as humans being a direct force of nature).

Thoughts?

workingatperfect

February 26th, 2013, 02:00 AM

Of course they do, however, they are not the only item in existence that could do any of that.

Have you ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem? It may sound ridiculous, but it is a truth, still, and it's extrapolated far beyond a monkey typing at a keyboard when you get into the mathematics. It even flows into the discussion we're on right now. The theorem is generally as follows, but you can look up the specifics if you want to:

Some arbitrary device that has no distinct pattern, but a series of available inputs from a domain, if given an infinite amount of time, can produce any and all resultant finite combinations in the range of outputs. *This theorem is not a theory, as it has been proven true.

This relates to our discussion because it implies that, given an infinite amount of time, nature can make it's own pizza.

Well, when I'm walking along in the woods and find a pizza that has no sign of human/intelligent life form involvement, I'll get back to you on that.

Well if "Humans are a direct force of nature", then going by the very definition we've been speaking of,

"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

We'd be left with a contradiction.
Since, now anything that humans cause (make) is by the definition, caused by nature, because "Humans are a direct force of nature." So we can conclude then, by the definition of 'natural' provided, that human creations are natural.

However, by the stipulation after the semicolon in the definition above, we can also conclude that that human creations are not natural. The stipulations before and after the semicolon now imply contradictions to one another.

Given the state of affairs aforementioned, we'd have no choice as rational persons but to conclude that the definition provided for 'natural' is a faulty one. During proof by contradiction, if the original assumption (in this case, our definition) leads us to a contradiction (as it just has) then this implies that the assumption (our definition) is false.

I'm not saying that what human beings do is necessarily natural, myself, however I am saying that based on what has been given to us, we'd have to at least conclude that the definition provided is false due to it implying a contradictory state of affairs; if all other attributes are true, as we seem to think (such as humans being a direct force of nature).

Thoughts?

It's not contradictory at all. For something to be natural, by definition, it has to be able occur without human involvement. How difficult is that to understand?

Ah, I may have found another miscommunication here. We're having lots of those, aren't we? By "Humans are a direct force of nature" I did not mean that something a human does is automatically a force of nature. What I meant was humans come directly from nature.

So, from this long conversation we've had, MY conclusion is still that law making is not a natural process because laws, in the legal sense, do not occur in nature. Do you still hold a different stance?

Quiddity

February 26th, 2013, 02:10 AM

Well, when I'm walking along in the woods and find a pizza that has no sign of human/intelligent life form involvement, I'll get back to you on that.

Do be quick about it, would you? Some people need food.

It's not contradictory at all. For something to be natural, by definition, it has to be able occur without human involvement. How difficult is that to understand?

Ah, but now we're changing from the original definition.

Original:"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

By this, since humans are a direct force of nature, any of that which they cause is caused by nature. The piece before the semicolon is true. However, once we get to the second part, it's then false. So, the definition as a whole is contradictory.

Ah, I may have found another miscommunication here. We're having lots of those, aren't we? By "Humans are a direct force of nature" I did not mean that something a human does is automatically a force of nature. What I meant was humans come directly from nature.

And so, would it be true that humans exist as a subset of that which is within nature?

So, from this long conversation we've had, MY conclusion is still that law making is not a natural process because laws, in the legal sense, do not occur in nature. Do you still hold a different stance?

I do.

workingatperfect

February 26th, 2013, 02:32 AM

Do be quick about it, would you? Some people need food.
Absolutely. I'll hop right on the laptop that also naturally occurred, conveniently next to the pizza and with it's own wifi might I add, and contact you before any scientist. Promise.

Ah, but now we're changing from the original definition.

Original:"Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

By this, since humans are a direct force of nature, any of that which they cause is caused by nature. The piece before the semicolon is true. However, once we get to the second part, it's then false. So, the definition as a whole is contradictory.

I paraphrased.

Something caused by humans is not naturally occurring. I can't think of any other way to say it, than how I already have. Humans are directly caused by nature. Anything humans cause is indirectly cause by nature, but for something to be natural, it has to be directly caused by nature.

It's complicated because nature can be used in two different senses. A physical sense where all animals, plants, landscapes, etc are considered nature. But the scientific sense would consider all of those things to be a product of nature, and not exactly nature itself. When we speak of natural processes, we go by the scientific sense. And in that sense, humans are natural, but not nature. You get me?