Clarification: Restating my argument in different words
This text is based on: Why eating animals cannot be wrong
There is harm that is done to the animal world that is absolutely necessary, i.e. necessary for survival. Like using land to grow food. Building infrastructure to distribute that food, and so on. I think it is possible to name a whole lot of thing that we can agree on that are really necessary.
But life consists of more activities than just those that contribute to surviving. Like eating more and diverse food than necessary. Or basically every hobby. Strictly speaking, even taking a hot shower should be attributed as a luxury rather than something that is really needed for survival.
We could strip away all those pleasures in order to reduce the harm done to the animal world. But such a life would not be worth living.
Consequently, additionally to having the right to do harm in order to survive, we also have the right to do harm in order to live a good life.
And then the question becomes, why should be killing an animal to eat its meat be any different than tolerating all the harm indirectly done to the animal world just for taking a hot shower.
Not eating meat is something that can be easily done but so is not taking a hot shower. Why make such a big deal out of one thing but not the other. When in fact, doing harm to the animal world is an unavoidable consequence, even for the simplest pleasures in our lives.
This does not imply though, that we should not try to reduce the harm that is actually done. My point is rather that desperately trying to avoid animal food products while more or less accepting the harm that is done in every other aspect of life is a misguided attitude.
Rather, we could simply accept that part of our pleasure is doing harm to animals. And thus, trying to be more conscious about what harm is actually done, but not trying to desperately avoid doing harm in one aspect of live while quietly accepting it in every other one.
The key is acting intentional, not dogmatic.