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
#FYFAD
Some crazy artist on Instagram created an illustration and someone made some stickers. You may or may not have seen these stickers posted around the world.
Can be taken the wrong way but also an adorably cute sticker made for kicks.
Some crazy artist on Instagram created an illustration and someone made some stickers. You may or may not have seen these stickers posted around the world.
Can be taken the wrong way but also an adorably cute sticker made for kicks.
by MonsterTime November 20, 2012
Dude, stop looking at me like you're shooting bullets! I don't know what your problem is, but "you better check your face!" You don't know me!
by talk2me-JCH2 March 14, 2021
by Abi-origionally coined by Gary November 16, 2008
by arandomcoolperson November 27, 2018
by hillo ren2 February 11, 2019
Person #1: "My taste in music is your face."
Person #2: "What does that mean."
Person #1: "It means I think you're cute. Do something about it."
Person #2: "What does that mean."
Person #1: "It means I think you're cute. Do something about it."
by whatsupnate September 06, 2016