Thank you for proving my point. The only reason you are confused and think Kaelik is making sense is because you honestly can't tell the function of an analogy. Either you don't know or you are deliberately ignoring the whole reason analogies are used in the first place.
One of the cardinal rules of writing literature is "show, don't tell." But the point of what you "show" is not literally the physical descriptions, it is what those descriptions indicate about the internal world of the characters. Instead of writing, for instance, "He was angry," you write, "He pursed his lips and clenched his fist as that vein in his neck throbbed," because that tells you that "he's angry" in a way that you
experience, not just understand. Now if I was stupid like you, I would write an analogy like "His fist was clenched like an armadillo rolled up to protect itself from predators." And you would call that a perfectly valid comparison, because both things are clenched tightly, but you'd be an idiot and no one would know what you were trying to say when you wrote that. Because the armadillo imagery is about fear, where his fist is about anger. It's a bad analogy that misses the actual point entirely, despite the physical similarity of the compared things. A good test for an analogy is if you wrote out the underlying thing like "He clenched his fist" and the analogy "An armadillo rolls up to avoid predators," and ask yourself if they both convey the same underlying idea independently,
because that is the actual point of the analogy. If it doesn't, it is a bad analogy.
Now let's go back and correct your work, because right now I can't award any points:
"McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty Bag filled with vegetable soup."
See here, the point is not to get you to register that yes, McBride fell and exploded because physics, the point here is the gruesome scene of someone falling to their painful and messy death, presumably in terror. Describing that with a Hefty bag filled with soup doesn't evoke any of the same ideas, and in fact it evokes the exact opposite; it is common, household stuff, innocent, light-hearted even. The gravity of the moment is undermined by the imagery chosen, so the analogy doesn't work (unless this is a meta thing where that's the point, but that's not usually the case, and in fact can't be the default case or the device would lose it's effectiveness). The imagery matters.
"Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze."
You are reading what is supposed to be a description of an attractive woman. The comparison to the nose hair, again, evokes none of that, and in fact evokes the exact opposite, undermining the entire description. You do not get "Oh, she's pretty," from this, you get "Her hair's moist, got it." Which is a bad analogy because that is not the point.
"The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease."
Hailstones leaping from pavement means that hail is falling pretty hard and might even be dangerous; maggots fried in hot grease are not a threat, so there's no indication of danger or even urgency. The analogy fails to convey what it needed to convey by focusing on the surface visual and missing the point.
"The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the Dr. on a Dr Pepper can."
Here, no one cares that this person is gone, and that's supposed to be a sad commentary on how little he mattered to anyone. But the period being gone is not a sad commentary on how the period doesn't matter (because it's not sad), it just happens to also be missing and unnoticed. Again, the surface similarity misses the point of the comparison and would confuse a reader. Though this one is closest to being appropriate.
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
Thoughts tumbling in head indicates confusion or perhaps a huge revelation that he's struggling to process. Underpants in a dryer does neither of those. In fact, it is so harmless and so devoid of emotional drama that it seriously undercuts the actual scene that's going on. What, do you honestly believe that the point is the physical way in which his thoughts are tumbling? Thoughts don't actually tumble, DSM.
That is why they are all bad analogies, you illiterate imbecile. Because analogies serve a purpose that is more than the mere surface visual. Just because two things behave similarly doesn't mean they are both equally appropriate to make a point. That is why Kaelik invoking rape as a justified thing to ban is a bad analogy to banning things that are actually
in the genre that he just doesn't like. Because if it were a good analogy it would mean that he is using
similar things to describe
similar qualities. Justifying a ban on rape is quite dissimilar from justifying a ban on genre-appropriate things, they evoke different feelings and different concepts entirely; one is an IRL justification that rape is presently disturbing in the abstract, but the other justification is that it offends Kaelik's WSoD, a completely dissimilar reasoning and relationship to the subject being banned. That is why I said he did compare them in the structure of his argument, because that is actually how analogies work. You are just too ignorant to understand that.
Edit: You're in luck, Kaelik doesn't get it, either.
Kaelik wrote:"You eyes are blue like the ocean." Very rarely means that your eyes are a liquid that covers 75% of the earths surface.
Indeed, but it also doesn't mean that your eyes are blue, it means they're
beautiful, possibly endless, like the ocean. Unless they don't know what color their eyes are and you're just informing them to be polite, I suppose.