While it is true all things are 'different' in some manner, there are nearly always logical mappings to be made between catagorical types. When one puts forth situation B, the intent is to point out the relevent simularities to situation A. The antagonist, when they invoke the 'apples and oranges' argument, incur the burden of showing exactly HOW these differences override or erode the simularities involved.
This you have not done. You expect me to buy the fact that the dissimularities make the simularities null and void without putting forth any arguments as to why this should be so.
Go ahead, I'm listening.
In the meantime, I will bonk you on the head with my refutation of the 'apples and oranges' logic-
The diffence in color, taste and source of origin of the two fruits has no bearing when the context is the question of the amount of pain one endures when either is used as a suppository.
The context in our case is 'the sex culture and its effects on young children' - to dispute that makes the whole article and principles involved trivial.