Where have I acted like your claim was massive or that there was an argument of any kind? Celista was wrong to bring her "people BLATANTLY misunderstand age of consent" in this particular thread. It's not like she expressed some great understanding of the Canadian one the last time she brought that narrative up, but at least she had some basis for her behavior there. That's not the case here. Texas' age of consent law is as straightforward as it gets in US. There isn't even a Romeo and Juliet exception to it. And criminalization of teacher/student relationships isn't part of age of consent but a separate issue. The idea that people don't understand the number 17 paints the posters here are abject morons.
And your not-a-claim agreed with her wrong assertion and as such is also wrong despite being a not-a-claim-y opinion. I pointed that out, pointed out that that the teacher in question isn't charged with statutory rape (though Raelbo does have a point in that it's not precise if she actually had sex with the student). And your reply to a post that people don't misunderstand the number 17 and your reply was an implied disagreement (at which point the not-a-claim-ness of your not-a-claim became somewhat questionable, but whatever). But hey, since I have your blessing to do what I want with your opinion, I'll repeat myself and once again point ou that it's wrong and not grounded in observable reality.