Is there a reason you cited something completely irrelevant to our little conversation? You're not very bright, are you? This is what you state so elegantly:

Fish. Not reptiles. Not mammals. Not the cows on farms and not the chickens in factories. They all feel pain. But fish do not.

Fish can literally not feel pain smart ass.

Fish do not feel pain the same way humans do. They do not have the neuro-physiological capacity to feel pain.

Now I'll try to explain this slowly for you. Take global warming. The general consensus is that global warming is increasing based on human activity. Now, of course you'll find someone who disagrees, but that doesn't make them right. Here is the first seven words in the wikipedia page:

Pain in fish is a contentious issue.

Now you are probably wondering what contentious means, so I'll provide that: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. You could almost say we are arguing now, if there was a case to be made for only one of us being correct. Now I know I'm correct, in that we can never know what a fish feels, but do you know you are correct? Can you definitely cite one source, and a dailymail.uk article and claim "WITH ULTIMATE SUPERIORITY I AM TREEFITTY350 AND I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FISH BUT THIS ONE BOOK DOES SO FISH CANT FEEL PAIN EVER".

Doesn't make you look that smart, eh? I know you are better than that. You don't know fish can't feel pain. You cited a source that for gods sakes is regarding phenomenal consciousness, not even pain. Come on, man. I will consider this conversation over, and I think you need to re-asses your confidence and your arrogance. I am sure they are already bringing you back a step in life. Good day, night, and adios. I will not be checking responses.