I think there is a mismatch between "self-healing filesystem" and "recovering data".
The "self-healing filesystem" (as I understand in the case of ZFS) is that it makes sure that the filesystem itself is not corrupted, i.e. the *whole* system is automatically healed. This doesn't guarantee recoverability of any single file that might have been corrupted.
Fsck (UFS) usually helps you to (a) heal a corrupted filesystem and (b) helps you to (partially) recover lost data (in case of corrupted files).
ZFS, AFAIK, puts higher priority on maintaining the overall filesystem's consistency over the recoverability of a single file. UFS w/fsck doesn't self-heal, but provides you with a tool to help recover a single file if the overall filesystem is corrupted or a single file is corrupted.
I guess the question is what is more valuable: being able to recover a single file or having a self-healing filesystem that makes sure the the FS itself isn't corrupted.
BTW: I assume that the use of angry sentences like "don't be an ass" or "... when your blood runs thick with ZFS koolaid..." won't help your arguments to be taken as seriously as you hoped for... then again, who knows