I did read the other threads, and I didn't see anywhere where other commenters had quite made the points I did, or where you had responded to them directly.

It isn't as simple as whether one's allowed to attack a theory, because not all theories are built the same way.

In some cases, there is no difference between the in-principle content of a theory and the practice of the theory. For instance, Jungian psychology is what it is; the practice pretty much defines it. In these cases, if the theory's flawed, go attack it.

Goodness! Always attack flawed theories, at least to the point where people recognize the flaws (even if there's no better alternative and a flawed theory is better than nothing). Heck, occasionally try to attack great theories too! Just be fair--maybe you'll find something wrong. That's how we increase confidence in our theories. (Don't waste too much time attacking really solid theories, though...there are better things to do with one's time.)

But in the case of evolutionary psychology, there is a huge gulf between what it could be in principle and what it has actually been in practice. In this case, I think it's very important to attack the practice if what is wrong is the practice. (Attack the principle if the principle is what's wrong.)

In this case it's especially important because what EP could be in principle is very close to inarguable: you'd certainly have to pursue a much more thoughtful and sophisticated (and philosophical) approach than you took to make any headway at all. But the practice of EP is often extremely far from what EP in principle could be. The practice of EP is an easy target; even the best EP struggles to be actual science as opposed to almost-science. But the principle of EP is a really hard target. So it's crucial to aim correctly.

When someone inflicts grief and pain, it is not just completely legitimate to express it, but actively laudable for society as a whole (in most cases). But if how the universe works inflicts psychological grief and pain, well, the rest of society can try to relieve you from the burden of having to deal with that bit of reality, but it's not really to anyone's credit to find reality oppressive. It might be that some narcissists can't be cosmologists because it drives home too painfully that the universe is not all about them, but we don't blame cosmology at all for their problems: we just hope we can help those narcissists through their issues (and other people can be the cosmologists).

So I think it's really important to get these distinctions clear. People trying to use "science" to excuse acting badly is a very different thing from realizing that some of your hopes and aspirations are dashed by reality.