Ok, WDW Fan, I think I have it figured out now, so at least I MIGHT be able to help you understand where my use of analogies is coming from, and why it can be so useful in discourse and honest, civil debate.
All grown-ups run their lives by some sort of priniples or "code of conduct" or morals or "way of life" or whatever you want to call it. Whether we realize it or not, we all have principles. Two fairly opposite principles are "Do what is right and only what is right" and "Do whatever I can get away with as long as no one gets hurt in the process."
I use analogies because when grown-ups make a decision about what to do in any given situation, they usually base their decision on their principals. Whether they realize it or not, they boil the situation down to the main idea and then run that main idea through their principles or morals or whatever.
For example (ANALOGY ALERT!!!), let's look at the situation of religious Jews and religious Muslims, both of whom won't eat pork or shellfish because it is against their religions. If they see pork or shellfish at a store or on a menu, they make a decision based on their principals. If their prinicipals say "Do what is right," they will totally avoid buying/ordering those foods because it is against their religion. If their principals say "Do whatever I can get away with," they may look around to see if the see anyone they know (to see if they have a chance of getting caught), or they might rationalize eating a sauce that contains bits of minced prok because it's not the main ingredient. In each case, that person knows their course of action before even walking into the store/restaurant; one set will resist temptation, the other will give in to temptation if the situation is just right.
So let's look at the mug situation, the penny candy situation, and back door of the theater situation. They are all the same situation. It's like a fill-in-the-blank problem. In each case, if your principals say "Do what is right" then you pay when the rules say pay, regardless of what you could get away with 99.999% of the time. In each case, if your prinicpals say "Do whatever I can get away with," you determine the likelihood of getting away with doing what you want, and if it's an acceptable risk you take it.
This is why analogies are helpful in civil debates, to help us understand one another.
For instance, if you truly run your life by "Do whatever I can get away with," then I'll never convince you otherwise, and it would be fruitless to try. But you might not run your life that way. If you can get away with both the soda AND the penny candy but you would choose NOT to steal the penny candy even if you could get away with it, then it's possible you could be convinced not to steal the soda, too.
I hope this makes sense.