> I've found that "meat" is sometimes used in casual English as "Animal muscle/meat, but not fish"

But also often monophylectically as "mammal muscle/meat".

True, but it's just stupid, fish are animals.

I know you're being flippant, but we'd lose a lot of what makes language beautiful if we beat the looseness and poetry out of conversational exchanges. Pendatic assertions often miss the fact that words drift in an ever-shifting consensus.

No it's more than that; perhaps you haven't discussed with some people, but a great many people actually do believe fish are not animals. It's not mere semantics, they don't actually consider them animals at all, as if animal, plant, and fish are all different categories. Don't dismiss as pedantry what is actually a very interesting topic.

Point generally taken, but that's a conceptual leap to make when talking about what "meat" means in a casual conversation. As an aside, I don't think I've encountered anyone who thinks fish aren't animals (but of course they exist)