>Unfortunately, you still couldn't get the point I was trying to deliver.

I got the point, but I disagreed with it. It's incorrect to say I missed the point. Your point is that family is less important than business. I will never believe this, and fortunately, most people's basic emotional functions remain sufficiently intact to be repulsed at the suggestion.

>Neither did I give them advice or ask to do something. I just pointed out that various people can live, think and behave differently (some of them a lot). I never said anything regarding what is right/wrong or good/bad. I prefer to let people decide for themselves.

This is moral relativism and it's another hallmark of naivety. There are objective goods and objective truths in the world. Stop fighting it and try to discover what they are. You may be surprised to learn that much of it is dictated not by inflexible social structures, traditions, or expectations, but rather by human biology, a force that none of us can modify or long defy.

>Do you really think that people can treat seriously what you write and feel respect for you when you constantly tell them what they "have to do", or make such references as "baloney", "stupid", or ask them to "seek therapy", and stuff like that?

I don't think you understand that I was trying to complement you.

Yes, I believe most people recognize the hazards of moral relativism and believe there are some things that are practically universally true. I believe the words "stupid" and "baloney" are completely legitimate expressions. I believe advice like "seek therapy" and "you have to do x" are also legitimate expressions.

You are free to agree or disagree, of course, but that doesn't mean everyone's manner of discourse must have the indecisive, middling tone as yours.

>But whatever they, or I, think and do is our personal choice, and no one can tell whether it's right or wrong.

No, there are objective rights and wrongs. Some things are so wrong that we've pooled resources to create police forces, prisons, etc. in order to punish and confine people who commit those wrongs. For the third time, moral relativism is not a real position.

>You sound very judgmental, but it doesn't make you right (or wrong).

I am happy to make some intermediate judgments -- we all must do so to get through every day. I don't think I've judged you personally, but I have judged the positions and actions you've described. It sounds like a principle that needs application in your life.

>I respect your way of thinking, and will appreciate very much if you start doing the same (regardless of whether you agree or not with some particular things, and towards all the people around, not me specifically).

I complimented the thought process you were using, so obviously I have some basic respect for your ability to restrain your emotions. However, I will never respect the idea that business should matter more than family ever. We just went over how that was shown profoundly to be incorrect. Had Jobs never sorted out his familial issues, he most likely would've faded into obscurity, continually unable and unwilling to work with others, and Apple's astonishing comeback would never have had happened. Jobs would've been a tragic historical figure, scarcely remembered outside of highly technical circles. Catmull says Jobs owes the developments that made him workable to his family life.

>BTW, I love this article: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/204856

At this juncture it just feels pointless to try to explain any more of this to you. This article sounds like it's written by a college freshman and is full of ridiculous exaggerations. I think we'd all agree that interrupting your work day "14 times" to take personal calls is excessive -- does anyone actually do that? No one does that.

If you got married in 2003 you're probably into your 30s by now. I'm not sure what it's going to take but I hope something helps you snap out of this ridiculous mindset. You can save yourself the pain by trying to re-evaluate things now.