Mr. Stark, I don't feel so good...
by Normie Memes May 29, 2018
Dan: you know mom will be mad if we're late for dinner but I don't give a fuck
Tom: Well, I don't give two fucks, she makes crappy meatloaf anyway
Tom: Well, I don't give two fucks, she makes crappy meatloaf anyway
by J'adore UD May 20, 2010
Conversational non-sequitur designed to kill an internet discussion stone dead. Always, ALWAYS, FUCKING ALWAYS DAMMIT to be spelt out as above, capitalised final word, full stop and all. Originated in Scotland.
Dave: Scotland Scotland Scotland
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Dave: ...
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Immanuel Kant: Nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves, we could never know it either a priori or a posteriori. Not a priori, for how can we know what belongs to things in themselves, since this never can be done by the dissection of our concepts (in analytical judgments)? We do not want to know what is contained in our concept of a thing (for the concept describes what belongs to its logical being), but what is in the actuality of the thing superadded to our concept, and by what the thing itself is determined in its existence outside the concept. Our understanding, and the conditions on which alone it can connect the determinations of things in their existence, do not prescribe any rule to things themselves; these do not conform to our understanding, but it must conform itself to them; they must therefore be first given us in order to gather these determinations from them, wherefore they would not be known a priori.
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Immanuel Kant: ...
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Dave: ...
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Immanuel Kant: Nature is the existence of things, so far as it is determined according to universal laws. Should nature signify the existence of things in themselves, we could never know it either a priori or a posteriori. Not a priori, for how can we know what belongs to things in themselves, since this never can be done by the dissection of our concepts (in analytical judgments)? We do not want to know what is contained in our concept of a thing (for the concept describes what belongs to its logical being), but what is in the actuality of the thing superadded to our concept, and by what the thing itself is determined in its existence outside the concept. Our understanding, and the conditions on which alone it can connect the determinations of things in their existence, do not prescribe any rule to things themselves; these do not conform to our understanding, but it must conform itself to them; they must therefore be first given us in order to gather these determinations from them, wherefore they would not be known a priori.
Splog: I don't like your FACE.
Immanuel Kant: ...
by Your FACE. December 19, 2005
by Oceeandude April 28, 2022
Phrase exclaimed by those working in fried chicken restaurants when they don't know what else to say
(Like, "Oh, sorry, my mistake)
(Like, "Oh, sorry, my mistake)
**As witnessed at an actual Popeyes by T. Dale Shaw**
Elderly Woman: I called in an order for 300 pieces of chicken.
Popeyes Worker: (audible smack) Is dat fo here o to goes?
EW: Honey, I can't eat 300 pieces of chicken.
PW: Bitch, I don't know your life.
Elderly Woman: I called in an order for 300 pieces of chicken.
Popeyes Worker: (audible smack) Is dat fo here o to goes?
EW: Honey, I can't eat 300 pieces of chicken.
PW: Bitch, I don't know your life.
by dilbear February 25, 2005
This term is used to explain the reasons NOT to date a co-worker.
The translation is essentially saying that you are not willing to mess up (shit) where you are making a living for your bread and butter (eats).
The translation is essentially saying that you are not willing to mess up (shit) where you are making a living for your bread and butter (eats).
by Haleys Comments June 02, 2006
I don't feel so good
by SkylerMP1364 November 13, 2018