Some of us who argue in favor of dynamic typing have a much more nuanced and informed view...
I, for one, am of the mind that the there are precisely zero production-caliber statically typed environments that possess a sufficiently powerful type system for the kinds of problems I tackle on a regular basis. Haskell doesn't count, since you need to turn on about a dozen GHC language extensions in order to incorporate the last 20 years of research. There's also quite a bit of design warts that newer academic languages are starting to iron out. In particular, I don't think monad transformer stacks are a reasonable solution to computational effects.
That's not to say you can't write any program in an environment where the type system is constraining you. You can. You simply implement a "tagged interpreter", which is something that's so simple to do, people do it all the time without realizing. Either you have a run-time map or you pattern match on an sum type data constructor, then loop over some sequence of those things with a state value threaded through. Poof! You've got a little interpreter.
I find that this happens a lot. And, I also find that a lot of problems are easier to reason about if you create a lazy sequence of operations and then thread a state through a reduction over that sequence. Now, in Haskell, I've got a type correct interpreter for an untyped (unlikely turing-complete) language! Sadly, I can't re-use any of the reflective facilities of the host language because my host language tries to eliminate those reflective facilities at compile time :-(
I'm in favor of optional, pluggable, and modular type systems. I think that a modern dynamic language should come with an out-of-the-box default type system that supports full inference. If, for some reason, I build a mini interpreter-like thing. I should be able to reuse components to construct a new type system that lets me prove static properties about that little dynamic system. This level of proof should enable optimizations of both my general purpose host language and my special purpose embedded "language".
Additionally, I require that type checking support external type annotations, such that I can separate my types from my source code. In this way, type checking becomes like super cheap & highly effective unit tests: The `test` subcommand on your build tool becomes an alias for both `type-check` and `test-units`. You just stick a "types/" directory right next to your "tests/" directory in your project root. Just as a stale unit test won't prevent my program from executing, neither will an over-constrained type signature.