onenerdykidThe problem with this argument is that it means you have to try everything personally before you can make a judgement about it. But there are plenty of things I don't personally need to try to know I should probably avoid them. Take being raped as a super easy example. Do I really need to be raped in order to know that I probably won't like it?
Essentially, I don't need to try everything but I do need either direct experience of related things or indirect experience of the actual thing. To your lemonade example, I might not have tried lemonade before but I hate lemons. Do I need to try lemonade if I absolutely hate lemons? Or I know I won't like being raped since I know of people who have been and they really didn't like it.
Doing hard drugs is a similar thing. I don't need to do heroin (substitute other hard drug of choice) personally to know that it might not be the best thing for me because I know enough people crippled by heroin that I should probably stay away from it.
This is two years old, but I guess I'll bite.
Okay, and you're right, but OP isn't talking about being raped or doing hard drugs. He's talking about smoking weed and drinking. He basically said: "I've never drank or smoked, but I know I won't like it and I'm not missing out." It's almost your examples in reverse: something people almost universally find to be enjoyable, and op is sitting there claiming that he wouldn't have any more fun high or drunk than sober, despite never having tried them, and despite the vast, vast majority of people having a different experience once they have tried drinking/smoking.
My argument wasn't great, but I don't think I'm wrong here in saying OP is being a fool.
