Is it Racist to Not Date a Particular Race?

Do you simply fail to grasp the definition here?

"used to connect DIFFERENT possibilities:" - you did nothing but hand wave the definition aside

Again - using the definition of [OR] which is to connect different ["possibilities"] - as in platonic, pure, [OR] non-sexual romantic love - how do we know this - because of the example - where she speaks of an infatuation and which is typically not used to describe anything aside from romantic attraction

Let's say I'm wrong though

that she is saying something like - a container for storing water or a canteen - where its clarifying a phrase

(though the fact that the list is not preceded by a definition makes this much less convincing)

I would just argue that the platonic that she is discussing is functionally different from the notion that you have of it. And I reference her examples to prove that:

Contiously language such as "fall in love" or "experience romantic passion" which has almost NEVER been used to describe platonic relationships - so EVEN IF and this is stretching - I agree with you that she is describing them as the same - their is a clear distinction here inbetween what is typically considered platonic love and the love being described here as platonic (this is again, if I agree which I don't)

• "Sexual attraction comes from a sexual desire for something or someone, while romantic attraction is the want to have a romantic relationship with someone outside of sex." [LINK]
  
• "While sexual orientation is the tendency to feel sexual desire toward people of certain genders, a person may have the tendency to fall in love with certain people. We might call this romantic orientation—the desire for intimate and emotional relationships with people of particular genders or sexes. It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with." [LINK]
  

This entire thing is you insisting you're right - if you have no further valid arguments to make then I don't see a reason to respond. There is no "atypical definition of romantic" being used here - several different sources cite these things (romantic and sexual) as different forms of desire. 

Perhaps the definition is atypical for you, but it is not an atypical definition in general. 

The fundamental problems with  some incest is consent

As you know a large and very important part of ANY ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP is consent, it is a necessary concept that both parties must freely give. Due to the inherent power dynamic between parents and child, consent not influenced by the parent is impossible to accurately determine, therefore one ought not commit it.

"That's only some of them though!" You might interject, "What about cousins and other cousins, there isn't a power dynamic at all!"

  

I'm actually not sure, besides the obvious genetic problems with children produced from inbreeding, of course, relationships aren't maintained just to sire children. So I'm not sure for those parts, not that I'm gonna make the claim without evidence. 

So, some incest is, some incest isn't, at least according to what I know currently

You just plainly state: "you're wrong", while ignoring reasoning.

Perhaps you feel you've already addressed them

I feel you like to insist until people agree with you after your initial appeals to "logic" run dry.

I plainly state: "even if you're right" so here you are addressing the thing you would reach after you've rebuked my other response - which clearly, at least to me, means you didn't fully comprehend the writing there.

I feel more and more confident in winning our debate by the response.

You have a tendency to ignore the central point, well purposely anyways, and try to get your opponent on the details, make em' bigger than they are

"ANY ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP"

You've stated my argument - then call it convoluted and wrong.... I fail to see your rebuttal, you merely asserting that it is wrong isn't evidence that is, nor is the fact that something is complicated make it wrong - love it complicated.

Also - that's merely you failing to grasp everything that entails the word "consent", because that is part of being in a relationship at all - it typically requires giving a large part of your trust, and the mere act, the label, is big enough that you have to ask to ensure that you are indeed in a relationship. Maybe it seems silly to you, but different individuals have different needs in that department.

You see, I would know what I mean when I write something, cause I wrote it, and I can tell you - that the word or - means to connect two different possibilities - just as it does in the quote above (which you have failed to actually account for, completely dropping that point). 

You claim the divide is arbitrary, prove it - you've alleged that I'm wrong all this time - fine then - stop dallying around and actually provide a rebuttal, you stating that its arbitrary is like me just saying - "Oh, no you're wrong." You don't, "to look past extraneous and irrelevant details", you claim you know what's extraneous or irrelevant, then ignore the main point - the problem is that you don't know what the main point is - or you ignore it purposely. 

Because the main point of those little definitions was to prove that the definition of romantic and sexual being separate is not "atypical" as you ascribed, it is quite common

"d? That is, a child cannot establish "giving a large part of [its] 'trust'" to its parent?"

It cannot be given without coercion, no - but notice that a familiar relationship is different from a romantic relationship - even by your definition

I showed they were common by literally quoting various websites that separate the two.

I know what I mean when I write or, and you taking an atypical definition of or (as in not the one typically used for the word or) is your thing

if you find it regressive, fine - I just don't accept your interpretation there.

Well, you made the claim that "the divide is arbitrary" and that my arguments are full of extraneous details... you have the burden of proof then, as you have that burden it is your responsibility (intellectually) to provide the proof, don't expect me to outline it for you. If you know I'm wrong, then you should already have the proof, otherwise, your claim was unsubstantiated, aside from an attempt at moving the goalpost, I don't see the point in asking "what evidence".

The use of anything grammatically is entirely arbitrary based on the syntax of the people using it. Language is human-made, it's not some concept we observed to be the state of the universe like math or science - it is things we made up.

And, no.... no I don't - if you know that my claims are bullshit, that they're wrong, then you know why you thought them wrong. Merely stating that they're wrong isn't enough evidence for anyone but someone who listens to dogma - if you don't have a reason then you have asserted my argument is wrong, and convoluted with no substantiation - which would mean you less than credible. 

Yes - we made up math - kind of - but the principles of math are from observation not prescription

the same cannot be said for grammar. In other words - the intentions behind the words mean much more than the semantics. 

It's pretty simple  - just give me the reasons, and if they are true and logically consistent with your conclusions - then oh - there ya go.