@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 month agoTechnically Correctmander.xyzimagemessage-square185fedilinkarrow-up11.55Karrow-down121
arrow-up11.53Karrow-down1imageTechnically Correctmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 month agomessage-square185fedilink
minus-squareHegarlinkfedilink26•edit-21 month agoI don’t think they need to make the enforcement of rules ultimately arbitrary to prevent explosives. You already can’t bring explosives. The molecules involved are not relevant.
minus-square@ZiglinlinkEnglish5•1 month agoThe mollecular structure isn’t the only thing relevant for bombs. You could make a bomb out of a pressurized material that you can quickly get to expand, I think that technically isn’t an explosive. I get your point but I also think having a catch all is good to prevent things that could otherwise get through by technicality.
I don’t think they need to make the enforcement of rules ultimately arbitrary to prevent explosives. You already can’t bring explosives. The molecules involved are not relevant.
The mollecular structure isn’t the only thing relevant for bombs.
You could make a bomb out of a pressurized material that you can quickly get to expand, I think that technically isn’t an explosive.
I get your point but I also think having a catch all is good to prevent things that could otherwise get through by technicality.