I think it should, but I don’t think it does. The first definition that shows up when I search the word: “The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.” It explicitly excludes fish, though I do think poultry is generally considered meat, so maybe this isn’t perfect. Every definition that is about flesh from a creature seems to exclude fish though.
The distinction of fish not being meat is the reason why the pescetarian diet exists. It’s a diet next to vegetarian, but allows fish. The don’t eat “meat.”
Fun fact! In English, the word meat does not include fish (at least usually). You can thank the Catholics for that one.
At this point in American English, there is no question that meat includes fish.
I think it should, but I don’t think it does. The first definition that shows up when I search the word: “The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry.” It explicitly excludes fish, though I do think poultry is generally considered meat, so maybe this isn’t perfect. Every definition that is about flesh from a creature seems to exclude fish though.
The distinction of fish not being meat is the reason why the pescetarian diet exists. It’s a diet next to vegetarian, but allows fish. The don’t eat “meat.”