I actually use Metric whenever I like the actual measurement itself. For example, if something is closer to a kilometer, I might say that it's a kilometer instead of two-thirds of a mile. If something's a milimeter, I might use that instead of a fraction of an inch, although it depends on the thing in question. As an American, I mix my measurements all of the time. Camera lenses? Milimeters. Carpentry? Inches.

But anyway, on to the title. I actually tend to use Celsius more than Fahrenheit, or at least when describing the properties of an object or substance. Having 0 being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point is useful for comparison.

However, I use Fahrenheit for my actual experience of temperature, namely with the weather. If you were to ask me how hot or cold it was in a certain place, I'd rate it on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being on the lower end of what I could ever be comfortable in, and 100 being on the higher end. Obviously, I can go higher and lower than that, but 0 and 100 are examples of when things begin to reach extremes. I think that it's actually pretty intuitive. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what 32 C is like. I hear 32 and I think, "That's when things begin to get chilly. Cold enough that the water begins freezing and to have snow, but not so cold that my body heet can't fight it off." It makes intuitive sense that the very beginning of freezing temperatures would by the bottom third of our comfort level.

Does that make sense? Celsius is for measuring chemical properties compared to that of water, and Fahrenheit is for measuring temperatures relative to human experience. I see absolutely no reason why these should be pitted against each other. They both even have mothers named "Martha."