General Discussion

Her point isn't that in the discourse of experimental and behavioral psychology, Epstein should be in category A rather than category B.

Her argument is that Epstein being attracted to and raping 15 year-olds is less bad than doing so with 8 year olds. That's an argument of comparative value. Indeed, it's worse than that, because it is an argument of comparative value masquerading as a statement about facts, so it is dishonest in that respect. Certainly, any journalist worth their salt should see through that charade. In any case, it's good that you reject Kelly's argument: to claim that the two activities are "equally disgusting" is to reject her argument of comparative value, which aims to persuade her listeners that they are not.

In any case, journalists know that facts can be arranged to deceive, or put in the service of specious and despicable arguments, as they are in this case. A journalist's allegiance is not to facts, but to truth. Only a poorly trained journalist would confuse the two.