Objection 1: It would seem that ramen are not men whatsoever. This is a common belief because a bowl of ramen is not an animate object; and men are indeed animate objects. Therefore, a bowl of ramen is not a man.
Objection 2: Men are composed of flesh and bone and contain a human soul, and a bowl of ramen does not have any soul, so therefore it can not be a type of man.
On the contrary, In the wise words of Maureen Grimm, “Ramen are men because they are hot and spicy and they give the satisfaction that woman needs and desires.”
I answer that ramen is not only the most amazing type of man, but they are the only men that every woman wants. They never make any stupid mistakes or forget to replace the toilet paper roll. In a few words, men are begotten of other men. An English man begets on another English man, and a French man is begotten of another French man, and so on. Ramen are men because they were begotten by Japanese men, and therefore, ramen are men too. The only reason that we are not taught to view ramen as real men is the same reason why in the founding of America we were taught not to view African Americans as real men. We have undermined the Ramen Rights as a whole, and the only way to fix this is to acknowledge them not only as men but as the greatest of all men.
Reply to objection 1: Dead men are not animate objects, but we do not take away their inherent right to be called men, so therefore the fact that ramen is not animate does not mean that it is not a man.
Reply to objection 2: There is a certain type of human men, who are both animate and made out of flesh and bone, who do not have any soul to tell of whatsoever. There are a few types of these men at this college, and they are commonly referred to as “gingers”.