I get where you're coming from cause you're used to F, so comparing it to C naturally keeps you thinking of F as baseline (would be the same for me the other way around). But saying that C aint on a 0-100 scale is just objectively wrong. At 0 C water freezes, at 100 C water boils. It's still a 0-100 scale, just based on something different. When it comes to metric vs imperial, it's an easy conclusion to me, when it comes to temperature I think it's more nuanced. I don't have a better explanation on the difference other than "F is human focused" while "C is science focused" (I know, doesn't quite cover it, just the best I got)

But then again, it really comes down to what you're used to feeling "right". For example, I could make similar conversions from C to F instead, and get weird numbers (water freezes at 32, and boils at 212? That makes no sense)

Never had too strong of an opinion on what temperature unit to use, but I will say this. C is a lot closer to K (kelvin) which is what is used for science, while converting F to K is a mess. So the one benefit C gives is a slightly easier time to get into that

I do need to let the nerd in me get this out too, F used to also be defined by water freezing/boiling. Meaning that technically C is a 0-100 scale, while F is a 32-212 scale. (Nowadays they're both defined by K, making this point kinda irrelevant)