<edit>You're right. That's a bad example. Here's a better one.</edit> Michael Mindlin was making millions a year when he was convicted over an insider trade he made $60k in. Really, the idea that if you give the bank robbers more money they'll stop robbing has to be this pervasive belief.
Michael Mindlin isn't Martha Stewart. Use him in your example next time.
It's like saying you should wear a rain coat because it's 60 degrees outside. And then when I point out they're unrelated you go "it's also raining". No duh wear a raincoat but you didn't say that at the start.
People use Martha Stewart as an example because she's (1) a household name and (2) a fairly large number of people both inside the USA and outside of it are familiar with the case. Mindlin is much less well known.
But when you use person as a reference point and then make additional claims a reader doesn't know (i.e. ~100ks for insider trading) and then the reader looks up the details and finds the person wasn't convicted of insider trading and it was also ~50k the rest of your argument starts to lose support.
I think we can agree that Elon Musk is (1) a household name (2) a fairly large number of people globally know him. However, if you want to make an argument about how to move your legs while running he's not the guy to pick as an example.
Like take the original post and just remove the second sentence about Martha. It still works just fine.
