DirecTV Apparently Thinks Promoting Child-Killing Is A Cool Way To Sell Subscriptions

Six years ago, I flagged an ugly series of DirecTV commercials. One showed police casually tasering people, yet another approved of stealing stamps from one’s employer. Then there were a series of commercials promoting the satellite company’s NFL package, with the theme that hate is hilarious. Among the incidents featured:

  • In Wisconsin, a Green Bay Packers fan welcomes her 49er fan neighbor by leaving a cake on his stoop. The cake reads “DIRT BAG.”
  • A group of Patriots fans in wintery Foxboro, Mass. grumble about the Miami Dolphin fan next door (“Moron!” says one woman). One of them throws a shovelful of snow on the Miami fan’s door.
  • A Dallas Cowboy fan sends her dog to trash and pee in her Redskin fan neighbor’s house.
  • In another Dallas setting, a diner, the waitress expresses her contempt for Philadelphia Eagles fans by secretly squeezing her dishrag into their beers.

That was mild, however, compared to the vicious sentiments being sold in a new DirecTV commercial.  A married couple sits down in their living room to watch some television when the husband realizes he forgot to record the show. Jon Bon Jovi appears behind them and sings about the power to turn back time with DirecTV, with its new feature that allows viewers to track down and watch  shows after they have been broadcast. to  That’s not the only magic they can accomplish by turning back time, the aging rocks star sings.  For example, they can go back in time and reconsider having their second child, who looks about 7, and is drawing on the walls.

Poof! He’s gone! His crayons fall to the floor. The boy is erased, and the two parents smile at each other as Bon Jovi smirks.

DirecTV does realize that making a living human being vanish forever is just another way of killing him, right? Why isn’t it immediately obvious that this shows antipathy to children, boys, and human beings generally? The human being who was made to go away because he was inconvenient and burdensome couldn’t have been a girl, because it would be a “war on women,” and the family couldn’t be Hispanic or black, because that wouldn’t have been funny, but a white couple erasing their son from existence because he misbehaves—now that’s comedy gold.

I’m not certain whether the commercial reflects our culture having progressively less respect for human life, whether it pushes us closer to such a culture, or is just the product of sick creeps. (Nobody in the management chain said, “Wait, we show a couple turning back time to get milder salsa, and then have them eliminate their child as if it was in the same category?  What the hell is the matter with you people?“) Whichever it is, one thing is clear: DirecTV hasn’t learned anything in six years.


NOTE: Comments on this post are now closed. To comment on the topic, including this post, please go to the follow-up post, here.

92 thoughts on “DirecTV Apparently Thinks Promoting Child-Killing Is A Cool Way To Sell Subscriptions

  1. Dear Lord: Please forgive your screwed up children, who don’t understand. Using your values system, ironically, liberals see it fit NOW to use these to make their point. They don’t believe in you about life, but complain using your principles. PEOPLE take it easy. A conservative sees that its a joke.

  2. Is it possible that the biggest threat to us as humans is the complete loss of a sense of humor ? It’s a funny commercial. Get over it. (Full disclosure) I am NOT a direct TV customer, I don’t believe in abortion and I am up to 5 children now because we keep adopting more children. But luckily I STILL have my sense of humor.

    • I’ve written comedy for over 40 years—revues, skits, song parodied and more. I am well-known for my sense of humor, and my “niche” in the ethics field is that the audience laughs often.

      Jokes about wiping out kids can be funny. I was a fan of the Dead Baby jokes. This is not just a joke, however: it is a company trivializing a vile cultural value that encourages and gives a pass to callousness toward human life. There is place for no-holds-barred jokes about women, men, gays, BLM and Muslims, too, but Direct TV wouldn’t dare use those to sell subscriptions, would they?

      • It’s called freedom of speech, which, despite the best efforts of liberal automatons regurgitating the same tired PC rhetoric, still exists in this country. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it, and if you want to protest it, don’t purchase Direct TV.

        • No, it’s called irresponsible use of free speech. I love being lectured by people who cite freedom of speech when 1) they don’t know what it means, 2) I wasn’t suggesting government censorship and 3) your comment is hilariously hypocritical, since while your argument is misapplied to the commercial, it’s perfectly applied to your complaint about my ethics verdict.

          So you’re an ignoramus. Got it.

    • If you don’t “believe” in abortion don’t get one. Do you “believe” in handing babies over to drug addicts and alcoholics? Do you “believe” in handing over babies to a woman who hates the baby because it has ruined her life?

      Until the whole Right to Life set can get it together and treat the “abortion problem” as an integral problem and first work on getting suitable and safe homes for unwanted children and can make sure that the federal and state governments allocate enough money for poor women and children, etc, then the RTL’s need to mind their own business.

      And it only seems that they care about fetuses and not babies or toddlers or children or teenagers since there is no welfare activism in their regard.

      And it only seems that they just care about unborn lives in America when there are many women in third world countries who want to keep their pregnancies, and yet are not able to because of poverty which creates lack of access to basic food and shelter and clean water, and lack of access to medical care.

      Really people, if you don’t believe in abortion (which should actually be stated that you don’t agree with it, because abortion does exist. It is not something imaginary like Santa Claus) then don’t have one. Forcing children on people who don’t want them and are not prepared to have them is both abusive to the child and the adult.

      Do you like people making decisions and laws about your private life? Probably not. And if you yourself are not able to personally take in an unwanted and/or maltreated baby and feed and clothe and love and care for him, then really you should have no say in what others do.

      My mom used to work at County Hospital and you should hear all the horrific child abuse cases that came in for surgery. And some didn’t make it.
      Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, even though their body would insist otherwise. Not ok to force that on someone.

    • I never get involved in these types of things. But need to share my heart in this. I had 2 children. My oldest, my daughter was killed 2 years ago by a drunk driver. My heart is broken. This commercial isn’t funny to everyone..

      • I am so sorry, I can see how this commercial would be triggering to you in that case, but I am sure you always treasured your daughter and that you were always happy to have her and had never ever thought that about her.

        When I was a child, my mom told me that if people could divorce their children, she would divorce me, and sometimes, I wished I would just die to be away from it, and then maybe I could look down from heaven and see that she might miss me. As you know, my father sure did not… him trying to make me die accidentally and all. He would have been happy had I been killed.

        What happened to you and your family was really and truly unfair. People should not lose people they value. Children who are treasured taken away from parents like you who truly love and appreciate them, and then children who are throwaway like my friend, or other children who are killed by their own parents. These people do not know to love and appreciate their children.

        I would also surmise that the person who was drunk and took your daughter’s life might not have been a valued child, hence the depression and mental instability that would cause them to drink and drive. Yet another reason why I think some people should not come into this life if they cannot be valued. Many will have emotional issues regarding this and act out and put other innocent lives at risk. Lives like your daughters. And because some person did not value and teach their child the right way to behave (aka even if you’re a drunk, get a cab or a designated driver), you have lost your beautiful daughter.

        At any rate, I can now very much see why this commercial would be very upsetting to you. If I were in your place, it would upset me too. At least you (unlike my father) stayed around to be a good father to your daughter. And at least she knew she was treasured and valued and she had the best life possible while she was here. I know her soul is forever grateful for your family’s love and care.

        Thank you for sharing something that must have been very difficult to share. I probably should have realized as much. My mother has had her difficulties being a single mother, but she did the best she could and even when we get in a fight and I get angry with her, I remind myself how much better a live mom that I am pissed at is better than a passed on one that some of my friends have, and when I think that way, then I am not pissed anymore and feel grateful that my mom is alive and also has the mental faculties to engage in a cogent argument with me. It’s all about attitude and gratitude.

        You are right to remind other people that they should remember to be grateful for their children and family members.

        • Anonymous is right to remind people to be grateful for children, but a mass marketing campaign that asserts that it is a normal reaction for parents to be thrilled when one of their children is wiped from existence is perfectly harmless and does not send a cruel and anti-child message.


  3. Self-rebutting comment of the day:

    “Who ever wrote theism article is a fucking idiot. Can you not tell the difference between make believe and murder. It’s liberal pussys like you that have neutered and over censored America. Fuck you you piece of shit hippie”

    The author has been banned.

    I wonder: Is there is anyone on earth farther from being a hippie than Jack Anderson Marshall. Jr.?

  4. This commercial is totally hilarious.

    Umm, no to anyone who think this commercial is about child killing. Direct TV is not promoting child killing. The ad is to promote being able to go back in time (aka Time Travel). Apparently this couple planned their children and so they would be going back to the time when the couple only had one child and was considering to have the wife go off birth control in order to have the second child. So no child or fetus would have been killed. The couple would have reconsidered having a second child and decided to keep using some form of birth control, or the wife might have decided to get her tubes tied and therefore not conceive anymore children.

    This is not so unreasonable. In the 1970s Ann Landers did a survey. She asked how many people wished they had never had children. Of the people who wrote in, about 70% of parents said they wished they had never had children (people were able to write in anonymously). I would expect it is the same today, just no one wants to admit it.

    Being a parent is the hardest job in the world and it is not unusual that many people would not be up for the challenge. It is a difficult and many times thankless job.

    If you think this commercial is about promoting killing a child, then you don’t understand basic concepts of time travel.

    • Umstarting a sentence like that here gets you banned, ass. Last warning.

      The post and comments makes it quite clear that DTV isn’t promoting child-killing–it is promoting its product by promoting the idea that making a living child vanish is beneficial, desirable and funny.

      Since ethics exists and time-travel doesn’t and won’t, your inability to understand the former is far more troubling than my alleged failure to understand the latter. You also don’t get the concept of murder.

        • Thanks for the gotcha. This sentence in the comments: “The post and comments makes it quite clear that DTV isn’t promoting child-killing–it is promoting its product by promoting the idea that making a living child vanish is beneficial, desirable and funny” is indeed self contradictory, and badly phrased.

          “it is promoting its product by promoting the idea that making a living child vanish is beneficial, desirable and funny” IS promoting child-killing, though tongue in cheek. What I was trying to say, badly, was that selling (promoting) subscriptions is obviously the objective of the ad, but the method of selling asserts that making an innocent child vanish from existence is no more than funny and a stroke of luck—which “promotes” the idea that eliminating a child’s life is trivial.

          It isn’t. If headlines were able to convey the complexities of a whole essay, we wouldn’t need headlines. The title is accurate: someone at DirecTV greenlighted an ad that suggests that child evaporation is a good thing. That’s consistent with the definition of “promotion.”

          I answer about 75 comments to articles every day, and I have a lot of paying work: they are not, unfortunately, always as carefully composed as I would like. That’s one reason why most bloggers don’t do it.

      • Wow, calling that person an ass for having a very well written response to your ridiculous article makes you more of an ass than them. So what, there was a sentence starting with ‘um’. Just because you have a better handle on the written word certainly does not make you a better person. Get over yourself and come up with a better rebuttal than name calling. Grow up and get a sense of humor before you shrivel up a lonely and angry old man.

        • No, I called her an ass for beginning with “um,” which is inherently obnoxious and intended to be so, not for a “well-written response.” “Um” used that way is intentionally obnoxious, because it states that the following statement is so obvious that no one can disagree with it. Being intentionally obnoxious is ass-like conduct.

          I gave a thorough rebuttal, and I have a terrific sense of humor—been paid for it, in fact. The joke excuse isn’t enough.

          Yeah, I shouldn’t have called her an ass. I’ll apologize to her; I’m just getting sick of these obtuse comments. Like yours.

  5. I agree with this, both commercial have an underlying subversive nature. The first one about erasing your child after living with it for 5 years and being happy aboit it seemed wrong and the bringing back the man she had before you just sounds kind of dumb,she isn’t with him now for a reason..both very ugly commercials

    • Maybe ugly, but definitely funny! You can’t tell me that people don’t think about such things….

      better to be above board about it… aka the enemy you know is less problem than the enemy you don’t know. Also, another saying, “Hindsight is 20/20”

      You do realize that about 70% of parents who answered an Ann Landers survey in the 1970’s said that they would not have children (not just one child like here) at all, if they had it to do over.

      Have people really changed that much since the 70’s? Do they really all love that they had kids now?

      I know, I’m glad I never had kids. Time consuming, money consuming, sleep deprivation etc. and maybe they’ll turn out well, but maybe not. And even if you love them with all your heart, you’d always be worried about them as if they’re a 3 year old til the day you die. Having kids is not a hobby. Its a lifelong commitment and not something to be entered into lightly.

      That’s why this is so funny. It’s just a joke because for a fleeting second people do wish their kids were gone when they scribble up a wall etc. This commercial makes people feel relief and happy to realize that other people have the same fleeting awful thoughts as they do. Its a “Whew, I’m not the only one” joke.

      Most people are not able to muster up the continuing never ending gratitude that you are.

      • “You do realize that about 70% of parents who answered an Ann Landers survey in the 1970’s said that they would not have children (not just one child like here) at all, if they had it to do over.”

        Did they also say that they’d make their current children vanish if Jon Bon Jovi stopped by? My guess is no. And that wasn’t a scientifically valid poll.

        • How was the poll not scientifically valid? in what way? You need at least 32 pieces of data (in this case people) to make a statistical inference about the general population, and I think at least 32 people participated.

          As far as the current child vanishing, technically the current child never vanished, they went back in time so the current child did not ever exist in the first place. The commercial is about having the ability to go back in time to change the outcome of things: sort of like that tv show Quantum Leap or the Star Trek episode where Bones’ 1930s earth girlfriend (played by a young Joan Collins) had to die so she would not start a pacifist movement in the US that would delay the US involvement in WWII and then result in additional millions of people dying.

          The commercial is promoting the ability to go back in time to change an outcome in the future (in this case, the ability to watch a show from the beginning even though you have happened on it way after the beginning) and its obviously not for people with no sense of humor.

          • It’s not statistically valid because it was an Ann Landers reader poll, not a poll of the general population, nor was she playing any attention to statistical legitimacy. It was self-selecting: the only responses measured were the ones who answered the question. Do you need more? Oh—Ann Landers died 14 years ago.

            If I poll Ethics Alarms readers, will that have any significance regarding the general population? No. The poll cited told us that a large percentage of Ann Landers readers who bothered to responded to a question SAID that they regretted having children. Now let’s talk about people who read advice columnists every day.

            • Hi Jack, you got me there. You are correct. However, the survey is statistically valid regarding numbers of people who answered (over 10,000 males and females in 50-80 year age range), but as you said, it was not a random survey; just as a later survey conducted by the magazine Good Housekeeping (which resulted in 95% yes for children) was not either because the responders were self picked.

              Please read this article on the website of the Department of Statistical and Actuarial Science in the url below: (it is very interesting)

              Click to access stat353annlanders.pdf

              (Here is a little excerpt)
              There were many responses, at least 10,000,
              so that the statistical efficiency was excellent. Provided
              that all the statistical assumptions were correct, the
              survey with that sample size was accurate to within 1
              percentage point 19 times out of 20

              So you are correct regarding randomization of subjects to make an inference about the general population, but still, very many people were not happy they had children, enough so that it probably would be reflective of at least 5-10% of the general population. It would be interesting to know more about the responders and why they felt the way they did. This is why I support Planned Parenthood because it is not nice to grow up with parents who do/did not want you, and people should not be forced to have children just because their bodies can produce them. A child’s life is too important to give them to just anyone.

              At any rate, the commercial is a joke, and who doesn’t wish people gone for at least a few seconds when they are being annoying? When I was a toddler around 2 or 3, my father who divorced my mother soon after my birth would take me on “visitations” just so he could try to make me have “accidents” so I would die so he wouldn’t have to pay child support since I was a true “accident”, and I still think the commercial is funny.

              (He gave me liquid mercury to play with, wouldn’t get me out of a pool when I was drowning, had me stand up in the back of his car and drove real fast and slammed on the brakes so I slammed my head against the windshield and unfortunately didn’t go through the windshield and only got a bump on the head.
              If he would have succeeded you wouldn’t be having to have this annoying posting conversation. One has to consider such things 😉

              So yes, you are totally correct about the importance of random surveying when it comes to inferences about general populations but, as far as Ann Landers dying 14 years ago that would not have anything to do with validating or invalidating any surveys she ever did. Einstein died 61 years ago, and, last time I checked, people still seemed to think his E=MC2 equation was valid… so I don’t get where you’re going with that logic.

              Still thanks for commenting from your child loving universe and forcing me to look up and become more informed about that survey. I always like to learn new things.

              And I still think the commercial is funny… because it’s just a joke. (Just like the Three Stooges are funny because its not real and if it was, Moe would have been in prison most of his life and Larry and Curly would have had their medical insurance revoked for using it too much)

              Here’s another joke you probably won’t like either….

              Give a man a match and keep him warm for an hour
              Set him on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life

              When you grew up like I did, you develop an appreciation for dark humor. You have to.

  6. Everybody thinks they have good taste and a sense of humor but they couldn’t possibly all have good taste. ~ Nora Ephron
    …”or a sense of humor.” ~ Rachel Zimmermann

    If you are “known for your sense of humor” you might want to brush up on the concept of satire.

    • And you might want to bite me. Satire in mass targeted media ( as opposed to MST 3000, for example) about the desirability of evaporating children is still ugly and out of place, and makes it easier for society to accept with a shrug, say, late-term abortion. Satire can normalize bigotry and anti-semitism—satire can be both funny and irresponsible.

      I have forgotten more about satire than you will ever know.

      • Maybe you wish both me and Rachel’s parents had “rethought” us. You’re getting a bit hostile here. How is it that people who will protect fetuses are often hostile to adults who are just really old fetuses?

        You also don’t get that women who don’t want a child do not make good mothers and that pretty much effs up the child’s life. Without a good competent mother who wants you, your life usually does not turn out well. Sure, there are some exceptions (Wayne Dyer is one), but for the most part, people’s lives are usually as good as their childhood. (E.G. “Show me the child at seven, and I will show you the man). So if society cannot work in an integral way to provide a good, safe, protected life for a child, then these “children/adults” should not be brought to earth.

        As far as late term abortion, that is usually done by mentally ill and manic people who cannot plan well. Mental illness and manic depression are inherited genetically, so maybe its not such a bad thing. A woman who would wait that long usually has bad mental problems and would not make the best mother, and last time I looked, I don’t see any right to lifers trying to raise money to start a really nice orphanage that they would voluntarily work in to take in unwanted children.

        And also, right to lifers are only concerned about babies in America. Instead of trying to prevent women from having abortions who don’t want a child. Why don’t these “Right to Lifers” try to help women who desperately want to have a child and who are desperately trying to keep the children they have alive. Do you know how many babies and children die every day in the third world because they lack basic things to survive like enough food and clean water and medication for simple things like diarrhea? Why don’t the “Right to Lifers” start there and help women who desperately want to keep their children alive???? and then when that huge problem is fixed, then, maybe go and harass women about something that is entirely not their business, but if and only if they have started that great orphanage first to place all those unwanted children.

        Wouldn’t it occur to you that a woman who would be willing to “kill” her fetus, might not be all that pleased with the child if she is forced to have it? I have a friend like that who was born before Roe v. Wade and his mother told him every single day how much she didn’t want him. I met him when he was a runaway teenager selling his body on the street to survive. I got him cleaned up and got him a job at a bank I worked at (I interviewed him and trained him after hours and so nobody knew he did not even have a high school diploma and that he’d never used a computer before). Now that is what you do to “save a life”. He now has had a job as a bank teller for many years. I gave this poor guy a life. That is what “Right to Lifers” should do.

          • Well did you know that the states that are the most restrictive in regard to abortion also are the same states that spend the least on social programs for poor children and families?
            You’d think that if they were so darn “pro-life” that they would want to help out babies, and children and families as much as possible.

            Rich people want lots of poor people here to use as human livestock to compete with each other for minimum wage sh*t jobs like at Walmart and for the human livestock to be forced to enlist in unjust wars for oil and for the human livestock to resort to criminal behavior in order to be incarcerated in for profit prisons that make money for rich white shareholders.

            This is the whole reason why the ruling elite 1% Republicans are so “pro life”. Farmers always want their livestock to breed and multiply. It means more money for them and this 1% use the middle and lower income Republicans and their bible values to help vote for and enforce this predatory behavior.

            If all these people really cared about the “Right to Life” they would also contribute money to children’s hospitals like St. Judes. But no, they just want to control women and women’s sexual behavior and have more impoverished people who will work for sh*t wages in a sh*tty environment. Like Walmart who forces their employees to clock out and still keep working for no pay and they have to do that because if they take issue with it, then there are 50 desperate others to take their place.

            This is not right. Too many people for too few resources. As the Reverend Thomas Malthus said, “When the population gets larger than the infrastructure designed to support it, there is widespread poverty and degradation” (aka The Malthusian Cycle) but why should the 1%rs care about this, they don’t have to live like that, even though the rest of us do.

            • This is called “free association” and stream of consciousness…or maybe “throwing stuff at the wall, hoping something sticks.”

              You actually quoted Malthus, as an authority.

              Wow again.

              • Well,
                The fact that there is an inverse correlation between abortion restrictive states (highly restrictive) and their lack of spending ( very low spending)on social programs for poor families, babies and children is not a free association. It is a fact. One you cannot reconcile with yourself, so you make flippant remarks about it.

                Bottom line, if these states are going to try to force women to have children that they might not want or can not afford, the least these states can do is to help support these children. If they actually really cared about the lives of babies and children, spending on social programs for these families would be a top priority. Since it is not, I can only conclude that these states are trying to breed expendable human livestock to work for slave wages, be killed in wars that profit the ruling elite, or become cash cows in “for profit” prisons.

                Abortion is not really an issue for those with money. If you have money, you can always get an abortion… law or no law. Restrictive abortion laws punish only the poor and create expendable human livestock.

                And if the “Right to Lifers” really cared about children and families, they would pressure these states, and all states to increase their spending for social programs that help babies and children.

                Make fun of what I say if you wish, but you are being illogical and anyone with any modicum of intelligence can see that.

                Spending money on family planning programs so individuals can gain inexpensive and easy access to contraception actually lowers the amount of unintended pregnancies that occur and abortions. Also abortion rates have risen as the economy has gotten worse and we can blame the very rich for this and the “bailout” that all middle income and poor Americans had to pay into for a few rich people who screwed up. Why are you in favor of poor people having rotten lives?


  7. This article is insane. It’s satire, as all the commercials are.

    You could easily make the argument that if they TURN BACK TIME then the kid was never born, and you can’t kill something that was never born.

    You are the reason this country is a mess – concerned with this nonsense tv commercial while endangered gorillas are being shot because some moron wasn’t watching their child.

    • I love this comment!

      1. Satire is not a pass for all statements. DirecTV isn’t a stand-up comic. I’m assuming you are smart enough to name some types of satire that that the company wouldn’t dare use in a TV commercial, because they believe the sentiments would get them in big trouble—the satire on your own website, for example.

      2. I could make that argument easily, but it would be an illogical argument. The kid did exist: we just saw him. Now he doesn’t. If you asked the kid before killing him, what do you think he would call it?

      3. That’s right: I am the reason this country is in a mess.

      4. So you are of the opinion that one can only discuss one topic, and if you do, you haven’t discussed any others. Got it.

      • You do not get basic time travel Jack. If you go back in time and decide to get a vasectomy or use birth control better or the woman gets a tubal ligation, the child never exists. You cannot kill something that does not exist. The whole point of the commercial is to be able to GO BACK IN TIME AND DO THINGS OVER IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THIS IS ALSO PART OF THE CONCEPT BEHIND ALTERNATE UNIVERSES. HOW OUR FUTURE REALITY CAN BRANCH OFF INTO DIFFERENT AREAS DEPENDING ON WHAT CHOICES WE MAKE.



        • You are hilarious. If an individual takes action that makes a current human life vanish from existence in order to eliminate that person’s LIFE, the conduct is murder. The entire Terminator franchise is predicated on that conclusion. The hero in “The Butterfly Effect” commits suicide by wishing himself out of existence. It’s suicide.

          • Well then what about people taking birth control or deciding not to have sex with someone, or deciding not to marry anyone? If they decided the opposite of those decisions, (e.g. to not take birth control or to have unprotected sex with someone or to marry instead of remaining single and celibate) there is much likelihood a child would occur from that decision.

            So from your reasoning, by deciding against engaging in unprotected heterosexual sex for whatever reason they are basically “killing” a human being. So also from your reasoning, everyone should be forced to have unprotected heterosexual sex all the time in order to not “kill” those people who would have been born as a result of those decisions.

            You can look at it both ways.

            And lots of people and their families are not here right now because Hitler’s mom didn’t “rethink” Hitler. There’s actual murder for ya… not “rethought” murder.

            One can’t really know whether a person is going to be an asset or a liability to the planet. But it is statistically obvious that children who are not loved and wanted do not do as well as those who are. And some can become threats to others.

            Do you really want to push a baby on someone who does not want it?

            And what about your charity giving and volunteering efforts in this regard? I have heard nothing about that. If you are so concerned, once again, why do you not make effort in this area yourself?

            If you are not willing to, it is best to leave off from this subject matter and concern yourself with something else.

            • I’m going to try really hard not to diagnose you as an idiot based on this statement:

              “So from your reasoning, by deciding against engaging in unprotected heterosexual sex for whatever reason they are basically “killing” a human being.

              Taking action with a consequence that does not involve the creation of a life cannot constitute killing an individual. The individual can’t be killed. The individual doesn’t exist. Who would that individual be? Male or female? What’s the name? It isn’t murder or killing by any definition to decide not to create a life, as opposed to eliminating a life already in existence. I have not destroyed a house by deciding not to build one. If I build one, and them “turn back time” so the house is never built, I have removed a house from existence, which is indistinguishable from tearing one down.

              You arguments have been so weak that they have made me more certain of my position than ever.

  8. With the recent ads of turn back time. Promoting child killing and adultery…this is why I wouldn’t subscribe to Direct TV

  9. We are already sick of this commercial and change the channel every time it comes on. Jon bon jovi looks like jamie lee curtis (an old woman) in one of her yogurt commercials with the grey hair and turn back time which seems to air 4 times an hour…. sell out.

  10. Get a life. Please, all of you, get a life. It’s a tv commercial. I am sure most of the comments are coming from 20 somethings. Sorry Directv has horrified you. Do you need a trophy or something to take to your safe space? I am sad for our future.

    • How about a really satirical commercial about turning back time so the couple could own a slave. Would that just be satire to you? Get a life? Mass distributed ads cannot “joke” about serious topics without being accountable…the product is advertised, and so are the values suggested in the “joke.” This one suggests that making a living child “go away” is a good thing. Nice.

      Ugly. They should be called on it.

      I am sad for our present, with maleducated types like you who appear to be incapable of critical thinking or distinguishing between commercial speech and a Chris Rock stand-up routine.

  11. Ok Jack. I understand. You have to impress your potential $tudents for your continuing education classes on this site. I just actually clicked on the your name and bio so I get the self-righteousness now. I originally landed here because I googled Bon Jovi Directv. I wanted to see if anybody thought he was as big a sellout as I did for doing this commercial. Now you’ve ignorantly labeled me as maleducated ‘ because I dare question the legitimacy of your opinion and mission. I really didn’t want to leave the last conversation with a Sarcastic Retreat, but when you started blathering on about ‘ what if the couple in the commercial owned a slave, would that be ok?’ you are starting to compare apples to, not oranges, but bowling balls. I am not sure how honest or ethical that debate tactic is. I am positive there is some sort of psychobabble term or lawyer-speak that we could apply to that deflection, when someone has put forth a totally lop-sided and flawed analogy. Help me out? I hope clear- thinking people that read this, can consider good, common sense, along with your theories, and decide what really is relevant in the big scheme of things. From reading the other comments,I think they may have it figured out. I think we should all try to do the right thing, but what are we even talking about here, with this commercial? I have I read your comment rules. I don’t want to make this political. However, your thoughts on the matter just reek of progressive hype, in my opinion. Very intriguing in some ways because you almost approach it from a pro-life premise regarding this subject. Unexpected, yet still annoyingly intrusive and preachy. The real rub comes when you try to shut down legitimate dialogue by labeling. If this site was designed solely for your lawyer clients, that’s ok. Don’t expect others that come across it though, not to call you out on anything you are saying and PLEASE stop acting like you are the smartest man in the room.

    • I don’t have to be the smartest man in the room to be smarter than you. How many of your assumptions are hilariously wrong? Not worth my time to count. But to enlighten you about analogies, the issue is making jokes that trivialize and mock actual societal ugliness and ethical distortions. Hence comparing satire regarding slavery and satire regarding child-killing are exactly on point and fair. My question remains: if you use the “Joke excuse” to justify a commercial sending the message that making an unwanted child disappear…it doesn’t matter how–gun, poison, sending down a well, abortion, “turning back time”—is so minor that it’s myrth-worthy, would you feel the same about a joke that did the same regarding slavery. That’s apples and apples except for those who see nothing wrong with eliminating children. Your answer to the question was to evade it, and resort to an ad hominem attack.

      If the next comment isn’t better, it doesn’t get published.

      And no, Jon Bon Jovi didn’t sell out—he’s an aging rock star. He’s paid to advertise stuff. Good for him. He didn’t write the commercial, and probably didn’t know what it would look like.

    • The commercial was hilarious! I Don’t give a F&CK what anyone thinks. Do anyone ever think that maybe the commercial was talking about using a condom to NEVER have the baby in the first place? Or decide not to go with artificial assimilation? Why go dark and grim and automatically think its about ABORTION or baby killing? Its a joke people! Geez! Heres some advice: Dont kill your babies. Next funny commercial please….

      • Oh, good, this one is properly idiotic so that it rightly suggests the kind of reasoning engaged in by the “it’s hilarious!” crowd. Thanks. Perfect.

Comments are closed.