Yes. Vegans draw the line at sentience, non-vegans have some arbitrary line based on what is culturally acceptable where they live. Which, in many places, is about the cuteness of the animal.

The vegan's argument isn't valid, but it's on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn't sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the "name the trait" argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.

The carnivore's argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.

Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.