I find that some people take the approach of "If the rules don't explicitly say so, I can assume my character is allowed to do X"
The rules don't explicitly say that you DON'T start with a fly speed of 10, therefor all characters must have it.
Why is it that people make assumptions like this?
I keep running into things posted on here where people are basically saying that they think the rules work a certain way, and ask if someone can disprove it...
I offer this suggestion:
If you think something needs to be interpreted, don't ask if someone can disprove it, show why you think it is a certain way!
I don't know if I'm being clear, but I will check back and clarify after a few posts...
If the premise is changed slightly, the entire discussion is changed immensely.
If the player is instead saying "The rules don't explicitly say I can't, then I can assume I can" is actually basically right. The only time "The rules don't say I can't" is trumped by "They don't say you can, either" is when the topic is a fantastic element of the game. "real world relevant" aspects of the game use the assumption that the rules are only a framework and not intended to cover every possible thing.. recognizing that GMs exist to apply common sense rulings on things that aren't explicitly said.
So, the absence of an allowance is generally not a prohibitation. "It doesn't say you can, therefore you can't" only applies to rules discussions about things like spells, monster abilities, and so on.
Of course, as Rhedyn said, the entire train of thought is moot when the GM throws rank, anyway.