When I comes to weather, I'm not sure that I've ever understood the "personal minimums" theory because the weather is rarely, if ever, equal to the forecast when you arrive 4...6 hours later so you better be ready to deal with the mins.
It also depends on what you list as your personal minimums. If I'm flying when it's supposed to be OVC020, it probably won't be OVC002.
Therefore, if I don't feel I'm proficient enough to fly an approach to the published minimums than I'm not flying. This is true even if the forecast is 1000' & 3 at the destination airport when I get my briefing, because it might actually be 200' and 1/2 when I arrive.
It also might be VV001 and 1/8SM.
Conversely, if I am confident in my proficiency (which I haven't been lately 'cause I'm not flying as much as I once was), I won't hesitate to launch if the destination aiport is forecast to be near the minimums, and if the alternate(s) are legal in every way.
You've just listed your personal minimums - that you want to be able to fly to minimums comfortably before you go. If you can't, you won't.
What are your minimums if you're a VFR-only pilot? CAVU? Are you happy with it if it's legal VFR? Since it could, by your logic, go to (or below) legal IFR minimums, doesn't that mean you shouldn't fly VFR?
The above opinion is in regard to weather only, not fuel, my fuel personal minimums are at least 1 hour's reserve whether VFR or IFR. I can control my fuel...I can't control the weather.
And that, too, is a personal minimum.
So, you do adhere to personal minimums. It's just that you don't get why people who don't want to do approaches to minimums will launch with a forecast of above minimums.
For me, I don't want to go to an airport that I don't have a high level of expectation to get into. Reason? I usually have a plane load of dogs, or else am otherwise trying to get where I'm going. If I can't get in with the approaches at the destination airport, I have to go to an alternate. This is a pain, aside from costing me more money.