I have Arminus and I don’t dispute that rationalisations (positive or negative) are deceptive and, in this way, I don’t feel or think that I am superior to you.
Some rationalisations are not deceptive, other rationalisations are deceptive. It depends on how they are used.
Rationalisations are deceptive for those who are deceptive, especially self-deceptive. You are a self-decptive "I“, so you have to think that others are deceptive and use rationalisation only for deception, But people are not equal. So there are people who are more deceptive than others. And there are some people who use rationalisation for deception and others who do not or at least seldom. But the main point is that rationalisation has a positive character as well, and this positive character is in conflict with the negative one - there is and will never be a "winner“. The current zeitgeist has influenced certain people (including you) so much, that this people think rationalisation would only be deceptive, but that is not true.
Arminus (spell-check autocorrected), at the moment you have not providided me with anything inspirational to suggest that you are correct on this matter and the self preservation is “meaningful” discussion only frustrated you (which implies deceptive rationilzations to me).
Be honest. You are not capable of spelling. Or is spelling also a negative rationalization for you? And - by the way - you used more than a one liner, One Liner, although you used one sentence (although one faked sentence - but do not worry, because you are not the super-faker in this forum).
That is nonsense.
You are the one who is frustrated - namely almost always, because rationalization is always negative to you. Always being frustrated is a very bad and very sad situation, One Liner. I am very sorry for you.
Unfortunately, you are just not capable of rationalizing in a positive way. I often said to you that you should try to understand that rationalizing is not always negative, because it is often positive. But you did not want to learn. That is sad too. So again: I am very sorry for you.
You are what is called a nihilist. I know that it is difficult today to not be a nihilist, but that does not automatically mean that nihilists are right. What makes this even more difficult for you is the fact that you are a pessimist in addition, thus a pessimistic nihilist. Not all nihilists are pessimists, but you are a pessimistic nihilist. I am so sorry for you.
Arminus, compassion is a virtue.
Yes, it is, unless it is misused and misdirected. It can become just as easily a vice without discernment, which may also be a virtue.
Then it’s not compassion but other than that, I agree.
The eyes are having it, ey Arc?
Are you enjoying your eye avatars?
Fortunately, signatures and avatars don’t work on my iPad.
Yes I am. I am greatly enjoying and employing the internet’s green-eyes avatars. Mine are green. Once i have exhausted the green ones to my satisfaction I shall employ the colors of my children’s eyes, a set of blues and a set of browns.
They say that the eyes are the mirrors to the soul or as I would have it, one’s own psyche.
Is fuse still around these days or has she/he vanished from ILP.
No images at all?
Compassion may be another form of rationalization. Like killing with kindness. Like compassionate euthanasia, broadly defined.
Conversely, rationalization may be a form of self serving compassion, again, we can not be completely sure we are doing it. Knowledge has not much to do with it , feelings and emotions do, this is why rationalization consist of unacceptable knowledge of certain thoughts.
Since the knowledge of certain things is usually suppressed by rationalizing them away, we definitely can not ever know for sure.
The safest assumption we can make is to assume that we are rationilzing (always for perceived positive outcomes) and then act with caution.
jerkey,
That’s why it has to be based in discernment.
Why does euthanasia have to be a form of rationalizing - if you can see reality clearly and if for you life is based on quality and meaning - not simply on preserving a lifeform?
Only if we are trying to protect ourselves in a way which is not productive or conducive to maturing. But then I don’t think of that as compassion. But it would be part of the flight instinct.
Another defense mechanism.
We can begin to know by seeing when we are in rationalizing mode. I think that whether or not people choose to believe it or not, sense it or not, there is a level in ourselves which can observe it - we just as you say choose to suppress it. Just as in our dreams, we can choose to ignore some object which is there, the very object which might be the most important to see.
Just as in realizing that we are not going to live forever can become our friend and lead to a more positive and enhancing life, so can observing our rationalizations free us from our delusional cocoons and cause us to fly more freely - rationalizations bind us to a false self. 
Rationalization cannot be observed unless it is exposed and then, when it gets exposed, a new rationalization kicks in.
I personally have no idea. Fuse is a guy unless the image of himself he once posted wasn’t real.
Most of us are like swallows.
Change the word “observed” to felt. We can feel or become aware of when we are rationalizing - that is its moment of exposition. Can’t you feel or sense it in yourself?
The more they are exposed to us, the more we can see what triggers them and how we relate to them.
Then we can practice not lying to ourselves or making excuses for ourselves and the power they have over us dies.
Think of them as having a life of their own.
Most of the time rationalizations are completely invisible and hence unfelt but, sure, sometimes some surface to our consciousness and create dissonance.
Arcturus, One Liner: Whether it is felt or observed, is a matter of gradient.
Both, feelings and observation relate to rationalizing, but one is compelled to ask, which occupies a deeper, or more central position.
Thoughts and images are closer to the surface, easier to access, they are more sensible. Feelings are misleading, because, verification is harder.
We can cry at something funny, and laugh at something sad.