They are always concisely written. A figure of speech such as those examples are given to show a similar dynamic and how that logic or dynamic utterly fails in another scenario, and not necessarily only because it's another scenario. The parallel example is used to illustrate how the line of thinking works out, no different from how I give lectures if it's a social science class.
And again, if anything, the limitation is the familiarity of the reader to the example, or his/her comprehension level. But in a public forum there is always more than one audience anyway and the point being made can be useful in illustrating to the rest the same point being made. In this case, if you want a more direct way of putting it, though it will not necessarily be coated in subtlety, then this is how I would phrase it in a very direct manner: wholesale ignorance and repetition of something not fully understood is not only erroneous, but also as in the example given above about Hitler's misunderstanding of Nietzsche, potentially disastrous, depending on the subject matter and the scope of its effects.
To be more direct about it, which I assume is how you'd rather the point is delivered, I'm saying it's not just ignorant, it's outright arse backwards. And that kind of lack of subtlety is why parallel examples are stated rather than be this direct about these.
Man, you travel a lot in the mayonnaise, this is a popular Brazilian saying, your imagination is much more fertile than mine, but I keep insisting on telling you to take it easy with these demonstrations, sayings and phrases of effect, I insist on saying that You're not good at it.
If you prefer the term "figure of speech," then so be it, but if you really want to do it then please, be it in a clear and straightforward way, you make a lot of detours when you want to use these figures of speech, go straight to the subject, beginning, middle and end. 
