And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.
inbred
"resulting from or involved in inbreeding."
Completely out of context.
Let's try again.
Notation: Individual: Lineage + Unique ID + Generation Number, X = paired)
A1 X B1, C1 X D1 ==> (Two couples produce two offspring each)
ABE2 x CDF2, ABG2 X CDH2 ABI2 x CDJ2, ABK2 X CDL2==> (Four couples produce four offspring)
ABECDHM3, ABGCDKN3 (Two first cousins, no inbreeding); ABIABKO3, CDJCDLP4 (Both inbred, receiving genes twice from one or more ancestor)
If an individual shares ancestors his or her mate, then the offspring produced are inbreed. Though the legal definition is usually limited to only two generations of ancestors.
A population of four unique individuals can create as large as desired population without inbreeding.