Do accusations of rationalising fall under Bulverism?

One of my pet peeves is when someone accuses their opponent of rationalising during a debate or argument. The idea of asserting what is going on inside someone else's mind seems condescending and arrogant to me. The same applies for accusations of 'cognitive dissonance'.

Venting aside, are such accusations classed as Bulverism? The purpose of these accusations seem to be to assert that an opponent is wrong without actually addressing the claims being made. I was hoping that someone with more knowledge could give their thoughts. Also, if possible, I would appreciate some advice on responding to these types of assertions.

Here are a few examples that I have encountered previously:

Example 1

Person 1: Reading fiction is a waste of time.

Person 2: Whether or not something is a waste of time depends entirely on what one's goals are. If someone finds that reading fiction helps them think creatively, and their goal is to think creatively, then reading fiction is not a waste of their time.

Person 1: Stop rationalising. Just accept the fact that you're wasting your time by reading fiction. You should choose a more productive hobby, such as carpentry.

Example 2:

Person 1: People that are against cruelty to dogs but eat meat are hypocrites.

Person 2: They would only be hypocrites if they were against cruelty to dogs despite being cruel to dogs themselves. You could argue that they are perpetuating an unfair standard where the welfare of dogs is being put above other animals; however, that doesn't make them hypocrites. 

Person 1: Cognitive dissonance. 

Example 3:

Person 1: Women will always cheat on their partner if they have the opportunity to sleep with a taller man.

Person 2: I don't think that's true. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Person 1: You're rationalising if you believe otherwise. 

In the first example, it looks like person 1 is avoiding the argument. Instead of addressing the point about how it depends on one's goals, they simply say "just admit you're wasting time." This is also bulverism (assuming they're wrong, and then trying to explain it by saying they're 'rationalising').

In the second, the person simply tosses out the phrase "cognitive dissonance" with no explanation (though they imply that either person 2 or said meat eaters have it). It sounds more like ipse dixit than a fallacy at that point, unless person 1 develops their point further.

In example 3, the person makes an unsupported generalisation, then accuses person 2 of rationalising if they believe otherwise. This is a red herring (changing the topic from the claim being made to person 2's thought process), and bulverism too - once again, assuming they're wrong, and then suggesting they're engaging in some kind of mental gymnastics to that effect.