Enough on the basics; let’s switch gears and discuss the topics for Day 3.

A. In a situation where one person is being harmed and the other is doing the harming, which is most to be avoided, harming the other or being harmed by another? Why? What if the person doing the harming will not get caught? What if the person doing the harming can avoid feeling guilty? The harms we’re talking about can be minor (stealing parking place), moderate (embezzlement) or major (genocide).
B. What skills should we work to possess, the skills to persuade others to agree with our beliefs or the skills to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false?
What do A and B have in common?

A. DISCLAIMER: I am currently in neither position, and that considered, my actions should I find myself in either situation may in fact be different than the opinions expressed at this time.
That having been said, the preferred position would be the one being harmed. While I often complain that “there are no good parking spots. I don’t want to have to walk that far!” I would much prefer that the spots be taken by those who need them (mothers with children in tow, the elderly who have difficulty walking for long periods of time, etc). And even considering the amount of pain I could possibly suffer at the hands of someone participating in immoral (there’s that concept again) behaviors, it would be nothing compared to the pain I would (hopefully) experience knowing the abomination that I have become and the discomfort I have caused for others.
This logic would continue to be applicable in the situation in which I would not be caught in my actions, because the disappointment in self would still be present. However, this would be much less applicable should I have the misfortune of losing the very values on which I have based my entire existence and forgetting how to feel responsible (I believe the term used in the question was guilty) for my actions.
B. I am of the opinion that the preferable skills would be the ones to discern whether the beliefs we have are true or false. What good is it to be able to convince others to believe you if you are unsure if you are claiming something that should be believed? I would much rather know I am right and have no one believe me than to wonder if I had convinced a hundred people of something that is false.
The sets of questions explore fairly unrelated issues. The commonalities between the two concepts discussed might possibly include the ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, to be causing harm to someone else is, at least in the majority of cases, wrong. Along those same lines, to convince someone of something that is clearly incorrect could be considered wrong.
That’s all I have for Day 3.