"the original paper suggests the lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the freezing temperature of a solution of brine made from a mixture of water, ice, and ammonium chloride (a salt).[2][3] The other limit established was his best estimate of the average human body temperature, originally set at 90 °F, then 96 °F (about 2.6 °F less than the modern value due to a later redefinition of the scale)."

That's from your link. Seems like the guy you responded to was correct or the wiki isn't.

For people wanting to not Read: freezing and boiling were intended to be 180° apart, or the opposite sides of a circle. So a gauge using his scale would have one degree of temperature equal one degree of rotation.
For set points, he used his best approximation of average human body temperature, and the coldest stable temperature that could easily be replicated, which was a freezing brine solution whose temperature would self stabilize. What he set those set points to was based of the work of an older scale, that he adjusted to get rid of fractions and make more fine tuned.

This is a great scale. Let's solve all the arguments about temperature and instead just create a "pleasantness scale". Could probably even market this and sell a "personalised pleasantness scale" and you pass it out to your friends when you meet them.

And yet, as a person, Fahrenheit seems far more intuitive and Celsius arbitrary.

Technically, water can still go higher than 100°C, same as humans can go higher than 100°F. Water turns into steam. If the temperature continues to rise, the steam would theoretically enter a plasma state. Then, you could say the water has "died" as the atoms and molecules lose their electrons.

Humans can survive 100 F so it’s not a scale of 0-100, which you would expect for a system based on humans

No one said it's a scale limited from 0 to 100 on the basis of survivability. That's something you just made up on the spot to push some weird narrative.

The person I responded to said it was based off humans, I was arguing that it wasn’t because no patterns exist in relation to humans

I again have no idea what you're saying. The patterns of 0 being low and 100 being high isn't a pattern related to humans? That's obviously not true. We use 0 as the bottom and 100 for the top on a lot of other things.

Well the person claimed it’s based on the temperature of water at sea level with 0 being freezing and 100 being boiling. This would be the 0-100% for water

Why are you limiting 0 and 100 as cut offs?