I will never understand this argument, how could any temperature scale be more intuitive than "0 is where water freezes, 100 is where it boils"??

Those two things are utterly universal unless you happen to live high up on a mountain (in which case you'll be off by a couple degrees, oh the horror) and quite possibly the most relevant temperatures for us.

The only other objective and universal temperatures i can think of would be when skin burns and when you get frostbite or something, the latter of which is still questionably objective and both of which are.. impractical to use for calibration..

It's not any better than Celsius though - you are only saying that because you are familiar with Fahrenheit.

Celsius

• 0 - freezing
• 10 - cold
• 20 - room temp
• 30 - hot
• 40 - miserably hot
• 100 - boiling

There is exactly one thing Fahrenheit is good for: thermostats. I hate that my shitty ass thermostat only has increments of 1 whole Centigrade. It's not a huge problem or anything though, and not worth all the other crap that comes with it

No, that's ridiculous and arbitrary. 100 degrees Fahrenheit is already way past too fucking hot and zero is far below too fucking cold. Zero to thirty degrees Celsius is a solid cold-to-hot range. 100°C to boil water, a very common human activity, makes far more sense than 212°F, too.

This assumes for whatever reasons that non-scientists could not have any reason to ever calculate anything with temperature.

If you use °C for a week or two, you'll get used to what numbers are hot and which ones are cold. But if you ever calculate anything in imperial units for a week or two, you'll still want to bite your table.

Anything 0F or below is too fucking cold for humans. Anything 100F or above is too fucking hot for humans.

... Tell me you're a privileged US resident w/o using those words. 😶

so 50 ought to be the perfect temperature.

also, decimals exist.

Agree. I will argue for this til the day I die

I agree, but I'm committed to the bit.