Did I say that Jung is obsolete (besides that a person cannot be obsolete). I was talking about archetype. You have just used logical fallacy.

"It's quite amazing what you did: emphasize the importance of scientific approach and then demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of human achievements in this area"

And yet another logical fallacy called strawman fallacy.
Besides Jung was psychiatrist not a scientist. Jung ideas are 100 years old just like Freud and most of them are considered pseudoscience or philosophy rather something based on scientific research with use of scientific method. As much as they pioneered in some psychoanalytical research, their ideas were fantasies with no backing in any evidence which anyone with minimum knowledge about science of human behaviour knows about (human behavioral biology and evolution, genetics, neuroscience, epigenetics etc). Just because they thought it is true does not make it so. People also believed that Earth is flat and it did not make it so.
It seems that regardless of inability to have intelligent conversation (without logical fallacies), you also have no clue about discoveries in science of human behaviour since Jung.

"Thus further discussion is pointless"

Yes, you accurately repeated my observation.