The entire vegan philosophy hinges on two major principles; a certain approach to morality and health. In order to have a conversation about the implications of any given specific diet, one must be educated in understanding what different foods do to the body. The point is that this conversation is difficult to have when the uneducated are involved, so it's best to avoid that conversation entirely. You'll get retards on both sides saying all kinds of bullshit that has been fed to them by dubious or biased sources, so it'll inevitably turn into a shitshow, with people going, "MEAT IS BAD FOR YOU and SOY WILL TURN YOU INTO A WOMAN" so just knock that shit off tbh.
If you remove the conversation about health, what is left is a conversation about ethics and morality. Is it moral to consume the flesh of animals? Vegans tend to anthropomorphize their pets and, by extension, other animals in the world. This attribution of human qualities to animals is what aids them in drawing their morality. Vegans believe in moral consistency, and yet they hilariously believe that they can choose which moral principles can be considered objective or subjective. The problem with that line of thinking is that the act of drawing distinctions between "objective and subjective morality" is in itself a process built upon subjective interpretations of these distinctions. Why is it universally "wrong" to rape and torture and kill? The wrong conclusion is, "because these are objective moral truths" and it would be more beneficial to conclude that these truths are derived from a subjective consensus. The absolute majority of human beings would not like to be tortured or raped or killed, so human societies stand by these tenets as a testament to acting with mutual empathy for one another. Furthermore, it could be argued in some context that these actions could be considered "acceptable" in specific scenarios, but the acceptability of said actions would be subject to the circumstances in which they would be deemed appropriate.
Why is it that human beings almost universally say that "killing is wrong" and yet throw this principle out the window the moment that an international conflict escalates beyond clear cut and diplomatic terms? Do the members of ISIS not deserve your empathy, fellow human? If they have done something to relinquish their rights as humans, then this merely goes to show that there are limits to your morality, and that morality is itself a body of thought that must be modified along with the circumstances in which the questionable actions take place.
The next question then becomes, "Why should animals be exempt from rights that are reserved for human kind?" The answer, as far as I can tell, is that most animals that are bred for their flesh have no ability to perceive themselves in any conscious capacity that extends beyond their basic and instinctual needs. It is erroneous to conclude that a chicken is sentient enough to be aware of itself, and it is certainly absurd to conclude that a chicken can have any manner of thought rolling around inside its tiny skull. Yes, chickens can likely feel pain, and that is why it could be considered "inhumane" to torture a chicken, but that does not imply that we as humans cannot find a way to reduce the chicken's suffering at its time of slaughter so as to ensure the most "empathetic" method of killing. Furthermore, this does not imply that we cannot furnish a lifestyle for the chicken that is both pleasurable and accommodating, which could then reduce its suffering and ultimately diminish any of those "nasty bad feelings" that are involved in the systematic slaughter of animals for their flesh. In other words, you may have a point in arguing that factory farming is a crass and questionable human practice, but that does not have to extend to every potential animal-human relationship.
In response, vegans would argue that all animal life is sacred and deserves to be preserved, yet they cannot provide any reasoning beyond their own emotional sentiment to support this claim. Your bond with an animal is not a compelling argument.