You have forgotten the original message: kill the abuser, period! We're not talking about feelings; it's about how to apply the moral principle.
I've made my point.

How is it irrelevant?

How did I change the subject?

If doing what I have to do to stop him includes hitting him in the head with a baseball bat, or in my case a polo mallet, that would be acceptable as long as he doesn't die as a consequence of an action he initiated?

He never said anything about initiating force on someone. That was what a child molester does. He spoke of his right to defend his life, the lives of his family and his home. And to eradicate the molester. I saw nothing about initiating force.

You ignored the prior point.

You changed the subject. But:
do what you have to stop him, but that is not likely murder. How simple.

He 'intends' to stop the use of force against an innocent, defenseless child who is being abused at the hand of an evil adult abusing their authority, power... Again I ask, how would YOU handle this situation?

Yes.

Objectivists are against evil...and are against use of force. They are also against weakness and complacency.

He WAS talking about putting a stop to abuse, immediately like. (By the way, I had a friend who was murdered...different subject all together... defending a life is not murder, it's justice. You sound like a broken record.)

Are you implying that it is immoral to kill the person molesting your child, while in the act? Would you prefer the molester be told that what they are doing isn't nice and please stop?

Don't think of the problem, instead think of the solution. What is your solution?

Is it not moral to snuff out evil when it presents itself in the form of force upon another?

Did you stop to think what I implied? Irrelevant to the moral issue.

It is in the context we are discussing. Obviously there is also manslaughter, etc.

Whoa.

No. It is not.

Murder is killing anyone unless in true self-defense.

What is your idea of "stopping" it? And self defense is NOT murder, no matter how many times you say it.

Murder is killing an innocent. Sexually abusing a child is murdering his/her innocence.

Murder is murder - that's what Nugent proposed. He was not talking about merely "stopping" abuse.

Not as Nugent intends - that is the context.

My error - I expected people on this site to understand and accept Objectivism; e.g. Objectivity. I am not talking about subjective views.

That is your opinion with which I disagree.

Recidivism among child molesters is among the highest of all criminals.

Do you not mind them being released to keep damaging or destroying the lives of more children?

Making sure they cannot repeat their offense is justice.

BTW I am entitled to my views just as you are.

Since you are not anyone I recognize as an authority over me, keep your condescending advice to "correct my views" to yourself

I wonder if that child would think the response was inappropriate.