 Ted Cruz was hosting a live version of a podcast with Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire and a very peculiar question came up and Ted Cruz did not want to answer that question But Michael Knowles did decide to answer and I have a lot to say about Michael Knowles' answer and Ted Cruz's unwillingness to answer. Let's watch Assuming that would end global hunger, would you filet another man? Well actually, I do have an answer to this. I actually think it is better that the daily answer this You know, there's a line and there's a line an American psycho about that Yale thing I think that's what our questioner is alluding to Like a like a typical left-wing undergraduate you are engaging in consequentialist ethics You are attempting to justify Flavorably immoral behavior to achieve a good end and and I tell you my friend The ends do not justify the means absolutely I am curious with that young fellow if it would solve world hunger, would you vote for Donald Trump? Interesting so that question is inherently flawed, but it's also Brilliant simultaneously and I get that that's a contradiction, but let me explain So it's brilliant in the sense that if Ted Cruz doesn't answer then you look like a coward But if you do answer then however you answer you still look bad You think that being gay is immoral and bad So if he says yes, I would go gay to solve world hunger Then you get to point and laugh at him and say Lamau you're gay But if he says no, then you still get to point and laugh at him and say wow You're that insecure about your sexuality that you refuse to sleep with a man to do something Objectively good like ending world hunger. That's bizarre So I mean either way you kind of back him into a corner and there's no way he comes out of that looking good But I mean this is just a silly hypothetical question. So, you know take it for what you will However, it is inherently flawed Because it relies on the assumption that Ted Cruz and Republicans more broadly speaking actually think that ending world hunger is Good like I genuinely believe that Republicans like Ted Cruz are so morally defective that they're sociopaths They either don't know the difference between good and evil or they know the difference But they think that evil and bad things happening is preferable like honestly like I'm not being hyperbolic If you put a button in front of Ted Cruz and you told him if you press this button, it'll end world hunger like that Would he press that button? I don't think he would it's not that he doesn't care about world hunger I think that he actually thinks that there's some value in the existence of world hunger or some sort of political gain He could extract out of people suffering For his own benefit. I think that he would probably say, you know what? I'm not gonna end world hunger I'm not gonna push the button because I'm not hungry. Therefore other people suffering currently in the world They can do what I did they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and they can feed themselves So I'm not just going to give them a handout and press this button and end world hunger. No I think that's honestly what he would do if given that option But going to the answers here, of course Ted Cruz is a coward, but Michael Knowles his answer I've got to say was a little bit sus to me So he says you are attempting to justify Flagrantly immoral behavior to achieve a good end. Now. It's really bizarre that you would conflate Being gay with a flagrantly immoral behavior You know the real conundrum would be if you rephrased that hypothetical and you said, okay To end world hunger, would you stab 100 people and kill them? That would be something that would be a lot more difficult to answer right because on one hand ending world hunger is objectively good But causing pain and suffering like would you make that utilitarian calculation? Would you choose yourself to end these lives to potentially save millions or billions more lives? So that is something that is a little bit more interesting But this is an easy easy answer. Would you go gay to end world hunger? I mean any reasonable person who's not morally defective would say unequivocally, of course I would I mean just flip it for a second right imagine if I were asked this question as a homosexual male Would you go straight to end world hunger? Look, I'm as queer as a $3 bill, but the answer would be an unquestionable of course obviously I mean that doesn't mean that I would enjoy it But would I do that to achieve something that is objectively good? Yeah, obviously and the reason why it's easy for me to answer this question is because I'm secure I'm confident about my sexuality. I don't think that going straight to end world hunger would make me any less gay Nor would I care about being any less gay Even if that was something that could happen because I am what I am. I don't care I don't have to prove to anyone what my sexuality is or isn't but Michael Knowles had a really interesting response to that The ends do not justify the means What first of all it would be more pain For the person to get filleted by Michael Knowles than it would be for him to fillate someone else because it's Michael Knowles You're disgusting second of all, I've got to say that for him to make such a bizarre hyperbolic statement It's us. It sounds gay. Now, let me let me give you an example of this So for me when I was a teenager I was still deeply in denial about my sexual orientation and I wanted people to think that I was heterosexual by any means necessary So I would make outrageous statements outrageously homophobic statements just to prove how straight I was But I wasn't sure if I was trying to prove it to them or prove it to myself So I don't remember what the context was but somebody asked me Oh something would you would you sleep with a guy? It was something of that nature and I don't remember what they said But I remember my response because it's so cringe-worthy and embarrassing that I think about it till this day And my response was I would rather die than be gay Now the reason why I said that was because I was so insecure as a young man about my sexual orientation that any Thought of me being gay. I wanted to you know shoot that shit down So even if it meant being hyperbolic and saying I'd rather die than be gay That's what I resorted to because I didn't want anyone to even think about the prospect of me being gay And so when I think back, maybe this is just projection, but when I think back to my answer It kind of parallels Michael Knowles answer in the same way. Does it not because he's literally suggesting That he would not Filate a man to end world hunger. That's the gayest answer. I've ever heard the ends do not justify the means Really? You don't think sucking a guy off to save billions of lives potentially Is worth it? I've got to say That makes you pretty sus in my opinion. That makes me think, okay, you're probably hiding something He's a christian. He's a right-wing conservative. He's an evangelical. He's a fundy. So, you know, he probably Thinks that being gay is immoral. In fact, he said it's flagrantly immoral So maybe He's saying that not necessarily to make a statement for all of us to believe Maybe he's trying to convince himself That he would never do that because he's so straight He wouldn't even suck off a guy to end world hunger because that's how straight he is I I think that if you ask Most straight men who are actually confident like my brother, for example, my brother is very straight He's a one on the kinsie scale If you ask him Would you Fuck a dude to end world hunger? My brother would say of course I would I care more about saving lives Than people thinking i'm gay because being gay is not bad And he's confident. That's what somebody who's confident in their sexual orientation would say But somebody who is not confident would say something like that not necessarily because they believe it because it's preposterous But because he's trying to overcompensate because he's trying to Let everyone else know I'm definitely definitely the furthest thing from gay like not even a little bit gay Like i'm a negative 50 on the kinsie scale Now being one For context is exclusively heterosexual. So he's he's beyond that. He's the straightest person on the planet Not not really buying it michael nulls. You sound gay when you say shit like that. So, you know, I mean honestly In this day and age with how accepting people have become For you to joke about being gay I would be less suspicious of you than you saying something Extremely homophobic like the homophobia the extreme homophobia to me tells me you're trying to overcompensate. So it's interesting Um overall, I've got to say it's Not a substantive question to ask Obviously, but I do think it is valuable in the sense that you really get a sense Of the morality of these politicians. Ted Cruz refused to answer that question, but he had a little gotcha Would you vote for trump? If that would solve world hunger, yes Now, you know, is the uh assumption that trump himself would end world hunger because I don't believe That that would be the case but also sucking dick wouldn't end world hunger So like if for some reason voting for trump would immediately end world hunger, would you do it? Yeah, yeah, I think most reasonable people would do that because again, you're kind of making a utilitarian calculation You know all the harm all the pain and suffering that trump would inflict that would be objectively bad But simultaneously all of the suffering that would be ameliorated because of this vote that would be worthwhile, right? So I feel like this is easy, right? Again, the complex philosophical conundrum would be doing something really evil yourself To save lives. That's that's I think this is kind of like the inverse of the the trolley Uh question or whatever. I'm probably butchering it, but But simply saying would you vote a certain way or suck somebody off? That isn't even interesting like it's an easy answer But the fact that they struggle with it so much the fact that he wouldn't have sex with a man to end world hunger Tells you that his moral compass is a little bit fucked and you should probably readjust it and also um Maybe stop being so sensitive about your sexual orientation if you're confident Michael Knowles great But at this point it seems like you're trying to convince yourself more than us And to me that makes my gaydar go off and Ted Cruz of course is going to do the politician thing And just refuse to answer but he's a coward the answer isn't easy. Yes It's it's simple. I mean most normal people watching this now would you Um go against your own sexual orientation if you're gay, would you sleep with the opposite sex? If you're straight, would you sleep with the same sex to end world hunger? I think that most reasonable people wouldn't even have to think about it It's just an easy yes, but the fact that they struggle tells you that republicans are just They they have a flawed moral system And that's assuming they even have a moral system because again I'm not so sure that Ted Cruz even thinks that ending world hunger is objectively good same with Michael Knowles So yeah interesting not the most substantive, you know, uh video in the world But I wanted to talk about this because I found it interesting and um now all of a sudden Michael Knowles, uh, he's making my gaydar go off And uh now I think he's gay because of that answer so good job Michael Knowles in your effort to disprove Your homosexuality now you've got a lot of people thinking. Mmm. You're a little bit suss my dude Me