My response would be the same one I gave here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016

The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on.

That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.

Just a correction: I am not making a gradient argument. The word brings to mind a one-dimensional scale. That is a measly one-step-up from black-and-white. The implication of a "gradient" is that there is "good" on one side and "evil" on the other, and everybody falls somewhere on the gradient. This is not strictly false in all senses, but it is almost always a gross oversimplification and, effectively, a useless measure. A core part of my point is multi-dimensionality.

What is he accused of?