I think about 99% of people who suggest to slap down types onto dynamic languages have already been using types since decades, or many years, in another language. Now they switch to a new language and want to have types because their brain is used to.
A robust type system allows you to make "compiler errors" out of runtime errors. One of these takes *way more tests to catch* than the other. I'll let you guess which.
With experience you will learn to either write unit tests or spend the same amount of time doing manual testing.
Once you start doing that then the unit tests just replace the static typing and you start shipping better code to your customers.
And your suggestion that people who like static types "don't know how to write unit tests" is further bad faith.
Perhaps it's dynamic typing programmers who don't know how to write sound programs? Except I'm not making that claim, because I'm giving you all some benefit of the doubt, a degree of respect you are not giving others.
It's called ratting yourself out.
Wasteful unit tests that assert your types are right don't have much value if there is a proper type system.
> It's called ratting yourself out.
Quit being childish.
You don't test whether the types are right, you test if your code actually does the right thing. That's what's important to your customers.
The types getting tested is incidental.