It's not from the books; more generally, there isn't anything in the books directly suggesting a connection between Syrio and the Faceless Men.

Couldn't find it in the Arya chapters of my copy. Wasn't looking terribly hard, though.

It doesn't matter that much, but I'm pretty sure that line is original to the HBO series, not to the books.

(Not my downvotes, incidentally, but I'd speculate they come from a desire to separate rationality from anti-deathism.)

Gods? There are no 'gods', young bravo. There is only one God, and his name is Death - Him of Many Faces. And there is only one prayer that one says to him - 'Not Today'.

Syrio Forel, Game of Thrones based on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin

"Sorry, my utility function isn't linear in orgasms!"

What it means is that I'd be indifferent between a normal day with a 1/400 chance of being a whale, and a normal day with guaranteed extra orgasm.

"Not tonight honey, I've determined that I have a 1/399 chance of being a whale!"

A straight line may be the shortest distance between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting.

The Third Doctor

I don't think that would work. People here tend to be more consequentialist than I've seen from people not from here, so we'd probably not be able to see as much of a difference. Plus, the people here are hardly what I'd call normal and are more homogeneous than a more standard set of people. To effectively test that, we'd have to conduct that survey with a more random group of people. I mean, that survey would work, but the sample should be different than the contributors of LessWrong.

If the number of deontologists isn't big enough to power our inference, the stats should tell us this. There are some though.

And I think going outside LW is unnecessary. This essay is hardly aimed at people-in-general.

Being turned into a hale [sic] might be as awesome as being turned into a gryphon

Are all those ostensibly unintentional typos an inside joke of some kind?

Because that would be different from what I thought was being implied by saying "'Awesome' is implicitly consequentialist."

I meant that we should be looking at the awesomeness of outcomes and not actions, and that "awesome" is more effective at prompting this behavior than "good". It looks like you get it, if I understand you correctly.

If someone is already a dentologist, that person will look at the fulfillment of duties when using the word awesome.

I find that somewhat implausible. If they are a hardcore explicit deontologist who,against the spirit of this article, has attempted to import their previous moral beliefs/confusions into their interpretation of "awesomism", then yeah. For random folks who intuitively lean towards deontology for "good", I think "awesome" is still going to be substantially more consequentialist. I would expect variation, though.

I wonder how you could test this. Maybe next year's survey could have some scenarios that ask for an awesomeness ranking, and some other scenarios that ask for a goodness raking, and some more with a rightness ranking. Then we could see how people's intuitions vary with whether they claim to be deontologist or consequentialist, and with prompting wording. This could put the claims in the OP here on a more solid footing than "this works for me".