This is a hilariously, needlessly hostile response.

That ratio is the inverse of what you said in your earlier comment, and is the percentage of i7 Windows running on ARM who are i7 Windows users. This value would presumably work out to 100% every time.

I'm pretty sure aardvarkjoe is right, your joke doesn't really work.

Neither would a whole lot of other things, many of them good. Encryption is just a tool to be used or misused, like any other tool.

I'm guessing that you've never, ever tried to challenge this idea.

One's point-of-view determines how said person interprets "what you do". Nobody is suggesting that somebody who might otherwise view ISIS as evil should reconsider that position simply because ISIS doesn't think that ISIS is evil. What is actually being said is that, though you (and many others to be sure) may think that ISIS is evil, this doesn't make them evil in some sort of objective, cosmic sense. All it means is that a bunch of people think that ISIS is evil.

TL;DR: Moral relativism.

In your book. Moral relativism is the whole damn point.

Right, but the question that kicked off this thread of conversation was:

"Terrorism" may be a fine descriptor of the end result of these attacks (and therefore may be a reasonable answer to the latter question), but it doesn't necessarily shed much light on the motives of the attackers. We may call them "terrorists" and it may be an apt name indeed, but it doesn't mean that we have any idea of what it is they're actually after.

You've completely missed the point with this response. You must realize that.

There is nothing left, everything is terrible. If things are the way they were, everything would be better than it is, but it isn't. It all sucks.

Didn't you get the memo?