Claiming Connotations

I think in that specific example, they're not arguing about the meaning of the word "immoral" so much as morality itself. So the actual argument is meta-ethical, i.e. "What is the correct source of knowledge on what is right and wrong?". Another argument they won't ever resolve of course, but at least a genuine one not a semantic one.

In other situations, sometimes the argument really boils down to something more like "Was person A an asshole for calling person B label X?". Here they can agree that person B has label X according to A's definition but not according to B's. But, the point is, if B's definition is the "right" one then A was an asshole for calling him X, while if A's definition is the "right" one then it was a perfectly justified statement to make. (excuse the language by the way but I genuinely can't see a replacement word that gets the point across)

This is my first attempt at a full post instead of a comment. Comments on style and suitability are as welcome as comments on content. Also, not all markdown syntax appears to work in full-post mode, and I'm not sure why. (in particular I can't seem to use markdown syntax for links, and I hate having to do extra mousework) If anyone can enlighten me I'd appreciate it.

I do have a specific non-hypothetical example of laying claims of this sort in mind, but I suspect it might be mindkilling, so I'm keeping it to myself for now.

Let me start by saying that I like the article, and found the main point both insightful and likely true. However, I think you chose a poor example, and did not explore the example thoroughly enough.

I think that your assumptions that both parties will accept your dissolution, or even should, are flawed. You're attempting to dissolve an argument between a straw atheist and a straw Christian.

As an atheist, I disagree with B. Leviticus 18:22 is not clear on the subject. The bible does not ban homosexual conduct any more than it bans wearing mixed fibers, requires animal sacrifice, or permits selling your daughters into slavery. Any Christian who claims that the Bible speaks to homosexuality without accepting as equally strong the other provisions, is clearly getting some of their morality and claims from sources outside the Bible, whether those are personal morality, their culture, historical interpretation of the Bible, or something else. (I choose not to use the uncharitable interpretation that Christians making such claims are hypocrites and only speaking loudly about the parts that are easy to follow for them, though I've heard that basic claim advanced. I don't think it's consistent with other observed behaviors.) Given that when people refer to "the teachings of the Bible", they seem to be referring to something more like "the teachings of the bible as interpreted by [me / my parents / my priest / talk radio / historical authors]", I think it's fair to say that B has connotation / denotation problems that you haven't yet resolved, and that it's fair for me as an atheist to disagree with statement B.

Furthermore, there are Biblical scholars more knowledgeable than I who say that Leviticus 18:22 bans male temple prostitutes, and should not be taken as law outside of that context. I'm not enough of a scholar to have a strong opinion on this, but it seems relevant if accurate. (I should also note I'm not familiar with the responses to those interpretations, and that I don't feel terribly inclined to find out all the details, because this is not my true rejection.)

I've also seen multiple arguments against A (none of which I agree with, but they do exist). You're hurting the other person you're engaging homosexual relations with, by damning them to Hell. Such an act can't properly be described as consensual, in the same way we don't let people consensually murder and eat each other.

There's also a fairly prevalent argument that homosexual relationships hurt other people in the society in one fashion or another.

(I feel compelled to state that I think both those arguments are horribly flawed, factually wrong, and fairly insulting. However, they are not arguments over definitions, and are not dissolved by your proposed definitions of the term "immoral", so they seem worth pointing out, distasteful as I find them. It didn't seem fair to call your atheist a strawman without making the strongest complementary claim about your straw Christian that I could.)

While I think it might be possible to dissolve much of this argument through good definitions, I don't think you can dissolve all of it, and I don't think you've yet dissolves it as far as possible. I still think that some of the points of debate actually need to be refuted on their merits, which you have not done.

(EDIT: fixed statement labels)

Yep, this sure is a real thing that happens :D

So, next question - what are they disagreeing about, if we taboo "immoral"?

Or, to be a bit more suggestive - what is the difference between these two arguing cognitive entities, if we taboo away the argument? What kind of change to one entity would constitute the other side "winning the argumet?"

Question: If they're not arguing about the biblical status or harm status of homosexuality, and they acknowledge that they mean entirely different things by the label "immoral," what are they actually contesting when they argue the proper denotation of that label?

They could be contesting either:

• Which definition fits common usage of the term "immoral", which can be investigated empirically (see the whole "experimental philosophy" project)
• Which definition should be the common usage one (i.e. in this case, it boils down to metaethics).

To take a simpler topic, two people could be disagreeing about a point of grammar (say "who" vs. "whom"), and the disagreement could be either about the way most people speak, or about which way would make the language clearer and more efficient.

Or you could have a disagreement about whether a dolphin should be categorized as a fish or a mammal - and even if you're in a country where in common usage a dolphin is called a fish, you could still argue that it makes more sense to categorize it as a mammal, or as a third, separate category.