"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s not just saying “no it isn’t” - Mr. M. Python
So a right is a rule? If there’s a rule that says I get to beat someone up, that’s the same as having a right to beat that person up?
“That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Mr. C Hitchens.
“yes it is”
“No it isn’t”
“yes it is”
“Look, I don’t want to argue about this.”
I have no idea where you get that from. Nobody has yet explained the difference here:
(1) I have the right to move around freely. If I break the law, the government may take away that right.
(2) I have the right to post on SDMB. If I break the rules, the SDMB may take away that right.
Obviously the SDMB is a private entity. But what exactly is the conceptual/functional difference that makes the second one a “privilege” rather than a right?
The difference being, a right must pre-exist the controlling authority. It must be a fundamental freedom. Do you have a right to post on the SDMB? No, because in the absence of the SDMB, such a claim is meaningless. You have a right to express yourself, you are granted the privilege to do so here.
This has boiled down to a simple disagreement about the definition of a word, and has subsequently become tedious.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less .’
You are still talking about origins, where rights derive from. So are you conceding that there is no functional difference between a right and what you want to call a privilege?
But it’s not just semantics. Because in discussions of free speech, people constantly come in with the supposed gotcha “it’s a private entity it can do whatever it wants” as though that’s the end of the matter. Virtually all public discourse now takes place on privately owned fora. The norms of freedom of speech are critically important.
Calling your right to post on SDMB or Twitter a “privilege” implies that it is qualitatively different and unimportant. But it is functionally indistinguishable from a right, and it is important.
Then as I said earlier, where it gets slippery is when social media is involved. Are we in a public space or a private space?
Again, it comes down to a definition.
I have made no such concession, and I have clearly and succinctly explained the difference between a right and a privilege.
Simple gainsaying my statement is not debate, it’s just contradiction. I came here for an argument.
You have given definitions based on origins (that don’t correspond to the more standard usage “natural rights”), but you have said nothing whatsoever about the functional difference between what you want to call a “privilege” and a “right”.
Now your just contradicting me again.
No I’m not.
ding
Thank you very much.
We have so many threads on what rights are, I am asking honestly if it’s needed here?
Being two of the more recent ones, and not including the one linked upthread.
Well, at least this episode should put an end to that awful Dogbert character, the Scrappy-Doo of Dilbert comics.
here we go 
The Pointy-Haired Boss speaks!