Pesco-vegan wrote:
....
> Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> humans. If I am to be honest

I doubt you are.

> I don't believe that fish
> are really devoid of emotions but there is certainly more
> room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.

You can also debate the level of consciousness of infants, people in
comas, and the profoundly retarded. You'd still be a cannibal if you
accordingly ate them regardless of how intent you are on calling
yourself a (qualified) vegan.

> Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.

Veganism has nothing to do with diet. It's purely about animal rights.

There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

> In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat

Specious and irrelevant.

> The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> after birth.

This, too, is specious. You're directly responsible for the deaths of a
variety of species through commercial agricultural activities. Why do
you object to the slaughter of one bull which provides hundreds or
thousands of meals but not to the thousands of dead animals which die
from planting, irrigating, harvesting, transporting, storing, or
fumigating crops?

<snip bullshit sophistry>