Rationalisation used in a sentence

Rationalisation in a sentence as a noun

Of course, maybe this is all post rationalisation and some people just are lousy at some stuff.

In fact for most brands those two are only connected via post rationalisation. Of course it can work.

Arguing they have only themselves to rely on, feels like a rationalisation to not help them.

All I see here is post-rationalisation, the last bastion of the cowboy designer trying to justify their costs.

The taboo could be because of the reasons the parent mentioned, and the "unclean due to eating feces" could just be a post-fact rationalisation of it.

Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are satan's little helpers, Okay - **** yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously.

The quality is really good generally, though rationalisation does happen with time, so we have quite big waiting lists. However, there is also a private medical system that you're free to use.

I'd possibly understand if this kind of rationalisation came from a government wanting its citizens to spend their way out of recession. Coming from a free thinking individual, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

As such, this feels like post-hoc rationalisation of a particular behaviour, even though it sounds reasonable.

It's so deeply counter-intuitive that I struggle to think of any possible rationalisation for the decision. I don't suppose anyone has a bookmarklet that toggles the transit layer?

I find the phrase "Memorisation not rationalisation" deeply sinister.

You seem to be confusing rationalisation with rational thinking. Rational thinking involves making logical deductions from a set of objectives and constraints to determine what actions to take.

"The fact that you unnecessarily called Schneiers current occupation as 'sad', imo, tends to support this rationalisation." Let me give you the perspective of someone who is outside the security business but knows a good deal about PR and the media and how it operates.

The funny thing is that you didn't make any genuine arguments in the prior post to refute, just several non-arguments and vague complaints like "manifestly obviously just rationalisation". >However the legal system doesn't exist to just enshrine and enforce basic rights.

I am much less interested in reading the hand-wavey pseudo-explanation which feels like speculative rationalisation instead of science." i lack imagination.

For me most of those 60% studies seem to be some sort of rationalisation based on a predetermined outcome: Let's find some strained statistical "evidence" that this stone age ritual that we are practicing, is somehow medically beneficial, so we can continue to cut our kids genitals to look like their father's without a bad conscience. > There is compelling evidence that ...

The fact that you unnecessarily called Schneiers current occupation as 'sad', imo, tends to support this rationalisation. None of the issues with Flash or certificate verification bugs you bring up are relevant to the discussion Schneier is having about this being the perfect kind of backdoor, and that, if it were a backdoor, it would have been hugely successful over the last year or more.

The whole piracy political movement is manifestly obviously just rationalisation, with the goal of striking back at shadowy 'middle men' being particularly ridiculous.

The rationalisation seems to be that because local firms, unless using what would now be seen as avoidance, cannot avoid profits and so corporation tax, then everyone else should jolly well pay it too. Of course, in the days when Britain's large international companies like BP returned taxable profits to the UK, the accumulation of wealth through extra national activities barely mattered ethically.

Not knowing the benefits of Angular obviously contributes greatly to a reluctance to learn it, and perhaps a subsequent rationalisation of this reluctance as being provoked by something intrinsic to the framework. Fittingly, after expressing bewilderment regarding Angular scoping, Jeswin goes on to divide the world into two camps, declaring membership in "the one which makes me productive with the languages, specs, and standards I already know", which is about the closest thing to a natural language scoping bug I've come across.

I'm not in your obligatory network effect, and don't want to be; it really hasn't affected my life in the slightest, so yes we do have a choice, and it's really easy and pain-free to say no to FB. Saying you must be on FB for your life to function is really a post-hoc rationalisation for a choice already made, and as FB becomes more user-hostile while catering to its advertisers, we'll see more people coming up with this excuse for continuing to participate, but the real reason most people are there is simply because it's what everyone they know is doing and through inertia, not because it is necessary in some fundamental way. I've been reading more and more people talking about giving it up recently though.