I actually read through that discussion, and believe it or not, he has a decent point, though it wasn't immediately evident. He eventually explained what the purpose of the exercise was, as well as his own stances on the issues. And contrary to his initial, inflammatory remarks, he seems like he's actually a rather rational and coherent individual who simply wanted to illustrate a problem in the most direct way possible.
For instance, he never suggested that the drug should be legalized or that climbing Everest should be outlawed (quite the opposite, in fact), though people assumed that was what he intended. Rather, his point was that we, as a society, have lost much of our capacity for evaluating risk, since the rhetoric we choose to apply to certain topics is blowing the risks involved out of proportion and blinding us to how dangerous they actually are. To demonstrate that, he made some blanket statements about climbing Everest using the sort of rhetoric that is typically reserved for describing dangerous behavior that is frowned upon, such as drug abuse. To say the least, the reaction he got was predictable: outrage, dismissal, the construction of straw men, and ad hominem attacks, rather than rational rebuttals to the facts and logic he was providing.
His point wasn't that climbing Everest should be outlawed because it is too dangerous, nor that the drugs should be legalized because there are other things we allow that are more dangerous. He was simply asking people to think critically about how the way that we present risks and have been trained to think about certain topics has colored our perceptions. I actually thought he had a rather good point, and that he did a great job of demonstrating the problem by placing himself in a position where the other commenters would construct straw men to tear down while vilifying him as a horrible person.
In truth, I actually thought it was something a lot of people here on Slashdot would appreciate, rather than something they'd laugh at, since we're supposed to value facts and truth over rhetoric and soundbites, though, at least taken out of context, I can see why it'd be seen as ridiculous. I actually started reading the discussion just because I wanted to see how ridiculous the raving lunatic would get, but then I found out that he was anything but what I had initially thought of him.