Okay, this is going to blow some of your minds, but I'm going to introduce you to a concept that's going to save you so much time in arguing with strangers on the internet: Sometimes "the same thing" is not the same thing. Yeah, on a first glance that sounds like it doesn't make any sense at all, but let me explain:
When people say things that are worded as universal general statements, and you know that the thing they said is not always correct, stop yourself for a moment before you correct them and ask yourself a few questions: Is the example you know of statistically more common than the example currently being discussed? How likely is it that the person you are correcting does not know that your example existed? Sometimes when people aren't aware that something exists, they don't do that on purpose, and aren't claiming that the thing you know exists doesn't exist at all.
You don't even need to scan for every single possible situation to evaluate whether someone's claim is valid, just consider whether it's true or false in the specific incident being discussed. Are there factors present in this specific situation that would make this claim true or false? Because sometimes there are elements present in the conversation that aren't explicitly stated, but the speaker assumes everyone else present understands to be present without explicitly stating them, and those elements can make something that would otherwise be the same thing not be the same thing. This is called "context", and it's very useful in conversations with humans.
If you hear someone saying "letting children that age get tattoos is so irresponsible" and want to correct them, pause and consider: Does this person know that there are indigenous cultures in which being tattooed with traditional cultural symbols, wards against evil, or marks of the tribe is a common and honoured practice? How likely is it that they are simply unaware of these people, and did not specifically intend to imply that these entire cultures of people are irresponsible parents? Do you need to argue whether the act of giving a child a tattoo is always the same thing, or is there context present that would make this particular situation not be the same thing?
Because sometimes, someone casually saying that letting a 10-year-old get a tattoo is not deliberately dismissing the entire existence of indigenous cultures around the world. They are still talking about the white woman who let her 10-year-old daughter get a playboy bunny logo on her chest at the back of a trailer in rural Arkansas.